33

ELF, ICC, and the /NEST – the Challenges for English- Language Education in the 21st Century1

Michał . PARADOWSKI University of Warsaw

Within the rapidly globalizing world the role of English, its status, and the language itself are undergoing an unprecedented, far-reaching evolution, with immediate consequences for the EFL classroom. The paper focuses on the following aspects of current validity: - the changes in learners’ objectives in a world where over ¾ of English-medium communication does not involve NSs of this , and their consequences for language syllabi and assessment (concerning not only the toning down of prescriptive norms on the one hand, but also the heightened significance of .. pragmatic competence in cross-cultural communication on the other); - the changes in global EIL/ELF as such, brought about by users of the language from what Kachru once called the expanding circle, as well as by immigrants, which, of course transforms the vernacular used by the NSs themselves; - the diverse and numerous factors which have brought about these changes and the ‘English rush’: social, economic, educational, political, etc.; - reasons why, especially in view of the above, the should not be blindly taken to be a better teacher of the language any more. All these factors need to be recognized by language teachers and program administrators in setting up a successful 21st-. EFL classroom.

Tides of Change in the

English became what it did from its overwhelming receptivity to input from the outside, especially in the Age of Empire and the Age of Industry. Now in the Digital Age, it' doing it again – following the natural ebb and flow of the tides of change. For those who would pull up the moat, who would turn English into a museum, who would laminate the dictionaries so that nothing new can be added or amended, a la the French Academy, I say be careful what you wish for. —Ruth Wajnryb, Australian linguist (2005, Dec 3) The Sydney Morning Herald

Before embarking on any serious discussion of ELT, one cannot fail to take into consideration the multidirectional pressures exerted on English during the last decades. While English-speaking countries are witnessing an emergent population that does not speak the language, other countries are keeping their heads down to make sure that their citizens do. English today is one of the most hybrid and rapidly metamorphosing languages in the world, and no longer under the sole jurisdiction of its native speakers. The spontaneous and inexorable ensure process of language evolution which has always affected English as a Native Language (ENL), is currently molding English as a Lingua

1 An extended portion of the first section of this paper originally appeared in the Apr. 2008 issue of the Novitas: Research on Youth and Language journal, 2/1: 92–119, as ‘Winds of change in the English language – Air of peril for native speakers?’ 34

Franca (ELF)—or English as an International Language (EIL)—and the resultant changes cannot be written off as ‘errors’ (Jenkins 2004). The rapidly changing sociolinguistic profile and glossography of English (i.e. “the historical-structural and functional aspects of the global spread, status, role and entrenchment of [the] language”; Nayar 1994:1) are both qualitatively and quantitatively unprecedented. Responsible have been primarily the processes of globalisation and internalisation, influencing speakers from numerous social, economic, political and—the most important in our case—linguistic backgrounds. Globalisation has fostered the ubiquity and supremacy of English in such key international arenas as mass media, education, international relations, travel, safety, and communication (Crystal 2003). Unprecedented changes in economics, in commerce, in the demographic shape of the world with the erosion of state borders and global migration higher than ever before, in society, in the nature and control of news media, in the growing consumption of English-language entertainment, in international education markets, and in new communications technologies (ICT)—especially the Internet, in which lack of familiarity with English is frequently equal to illiteracy—have all accelerated the spread of the language and influenced its current shape (Crystal 2002; while being themselves feedback-wise affirmed and propelled by the growing availability of this global language).

Learners ever Younger

English learners worldwide are massively increasing in number while decreasing in age, with the number (1.9 billion on one recent estimate1) anticipated to reach 2 billion in less than a decade (Graddol 2006:14; 99-101), to peak at 3 billion—about half the present-day world’s population—by around 2040 (op. cit.:107). Parents eager for their children to achieve are themselves pushing industry changes, forking over tuition for English- language schools from Caracas to Karachi, while education ministries from Tunisia to Turkey are decreeing the teaching of the language to at least a basic level, acknowledging it—alongside computers and mass migration—as the turbine engine of globalisation (Power 2005). China made English compulsory in primary schools from Grade 3 in 2001, while metropolises such as Beijing and Shanghai already had it at Grade 1. In 2004 a new English learning curriculum was launched in the PRC, increasing students’ vocabularies from 3,500 to 5,000 words, paying more attention to developing communicative skills, endorsing CALL at college level, and making elementary-level English a mandatory requirement on all degree courses, permitting the inclusion of an oral English component in university entrance examinations (Gill 2004). A growing number of parents are even enrolling their preschoolers in the new crop of local language courses, with some pregnant women speaking English to their foetuses (Power 2005). With an estimated 176.7 million pupils in the state education sector in 2005 (nearly twice as many as there are Britons), more people are learning English in the Middle Kingdom than in any other country, annually letting loose over 20 million new users of the language (ibid.), the primary aim being to help future employees interact more effectively in the business market.2

1 http://www.xefl.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18 2 Taxi drivers in Taiwan, frequently depicted in travel guides as speaking no foreign languages, are working hard to break the stereotype. You no longer need to fret as long as the chauffer belongs to the English Taxi Drivers 35

and Older

At the other end of the spectrum, courses for old-age pensioners are also oversubscribed. Grandmas and grandpas want to communicate with their grandchildren who live abroad and may not speak a word of their parents’ mother tongue (on the spot or via Skype or webchat), to travel, surf the Internet, and understand foreign television channels. Language schools have responded to the demand launching special offers targeted at this clientele (e.g. morning meetings in a narrow circle over tea, coffee and biscuits), hitting a niche in the market that has now become a distinct trend in education. The elderly today—who go into retirement in full possession of their mental faculties—take up languages not just to kill the time and train grey matter, but also because they find them handy in everyday use, and out of the desire to get to know the world and new people, while an increasing number can afford language classes. They learn systematically, with diligence and lots of enthusiasm. The declining birth rate and changes in the image of the grandparents presented in the media as well-clad, full of vigour and having plenty of spare time, result in their not having or being willing to take care of grandchildren, while choosing to develop their own skills.

The ‘Ownership’ of English

The English language is not a square with definite sides containing its area; it is a circle ... nowhere bounded by any line called a circumference. It is a spot of colour on a damp surface, which shades away imperceptibly into the surrounding colourlessness. —Sir James A. . Murray, British lexicographer (1884) Oxford English Dictionary

At such a rate, when according to David Crystal non-native English speakers now outnumber native ones 3:1, the time-honoured curators of English no longer remain in control of how their—actually, now only partly their—language is developing (Graddol 2006:12), and no longer can a solitary country or culture—or the whole Anglosphere even—assert absolute sovereignty over the language. These new users of the language are not just submissively soaking it up—they are actively sculpting it, breeding a variety of regional Englishes3 (dialects), as well as offshoots of colonization – pidgins and English- lexified creoles. These languages, which have evolved as amalgams of different codes, are now unintelligible to many Anglophone monolinguals. At the same time, with the growing economies of developing countries (especially such ‘Asian tigers’ as the PRC or India), many former economic U.S. immigrants may

Association, having finished an ESP training program and passed a speaking test, whereupon s/he receives a certificate and a sticker reading “Yes, I speak English,” to be prominently displayed on the cab for easy identification. Since the launch of the program in 2001, more than 1,000 drivers have been awarded the certificate. ETA general director asserted that the drivers often speak English with one another as daily practice, and some even read English newspapers on a daily basis (‘Taipei cab drivers brushing up their linguistic skills.’ Taipei Times, Jun 13 2006). 3 Richards (1972) proposed that these varieties should properly be regarded as interlanguages which have developed as a consequence of the particular social contexts of their learning and use. However, once they have become established in their communities of speakers and gained the status of the L1 for subsequent generations, they can now be seen as independent varieties in sui generis terms. 36 presently opt to return to their homeland, bringing with them their young, English- speaking kin (Graddol 2006:29). Also, as in an increasing number of countries English is becoming a component of core education, becoming a near-universal basic skill (op. cit.:15)—no longer one of the important skills, but the skill—native-speaker norms are losing in both consequence and veneration . English is no longer the codified and normalized language hit upon in the course and grammar books of the last millennium, but a language whose status is being radically transformed! David Crystal (2003:113; ‘A tridialectal future’) envisages a tri-English world, in which we will be speaking a local (English-based) dialect at home, a national variety at school or the workplace, and an international standard to approach foreigners (Power 2005). For this reason, more and more linguists begin to argue that the language is no longer a select cultural signature of the NSs. The claim is backed up by studies of students’ attitudes towards foreign languages, where English was not associated with its native speakers as much as in the case of other languages such as Dutch, French, German, or Spanish, which convey stereotypical images (cf. e.g. Lochtman 2006). Still, despite—or maybe because of—all the new varieties cropping up, it is the UK and U.S. versions that continue to carry prestige, particularly with tuition-paying parents (Power 2005).

NS Teachers in Short Supply

Native speakers can no longer slake the escalating demand for ELT services, which far exceeds supply, even in their homelands. The UK alone has observed a soaring demand for oversubscribed ESOL classes, with enrolment surging from 150,000 in 2000-01 to 538,700 in 2004-05 and the waiting lists continuing to grow (Salman 2006), the shortage of qualified teachers being a problem that has been recurring in London for a number of years and recently spreading throughout the country. China—whose authorities estimate they need roughly 1 million English teachers—and the Middle East have now began to bring in English teachers from India (Power 2005), while more and more language TAs originate from India or Singapore, and the designation of a ‘NS teacher’ is slowly being relaxed to welcome teachers from the ‘outer circle’.

Expansion of English in the Workplace

Another notable phenomenon brought about by globalisation (itself accelerated to a large extent owing to the position of English, in conjunction with low-cost communication technologies such as e-mail, VoIP and Skype, supplanting landline technology and enabling calls across the world at marginal cost) is the outsourcing of products and services to locations with lower labour costs (India and China in particular; Graddol 2006:34). This allure of English in the outsourcing industry is caused by the fact that the majority of the offshore contracts are commissioned by English-speaking corporations. Currently, even call centres are being located in distant countries such as India, whose competitive advantage over its economic rivals in Asia is—not surprisingly—due precisely to the ready reserve of professionals speaking English. Moreover, “[i]n the course of [the] worldwide trend towards economic mergers it has become evident that—although a newly merged international company may not have its headquarters in an English-speaking country, as is the case, for instance, with Daimler- 37

Chrysler—such joint ventures typically adopt English as their working language, a policy which, again, promotes a local need for English” (House 2000:245f.). In the globalizing world, we witness transnational corporations shifting abroad not only their & centres (business process outsourcing), but also commissioning high-value intellectual work overseas (outsourcing of knowledge processes, i.e. “services involving specialised knowledge which requires research skills and the exercise of professional judgment;” Graddol 2006:36). Needless to say, it is English that is going to be used as the medium of communication in these multinationals, and this will—again—rather not be RP.

Anglophone Monoglots on the Defensive

Imagine the Lord talking French! Aside from a few odd words in Hebrew, I took it completely for granted that God had never spoken anything but the most dignified English. —Clarence Shepard Day Life with Father (1935:ch. “Father Interferes with the Twenty-Third Psalm”)

In the increasingly interdependent world qualified multilingual foreigners are already proving to have a competitive edge over their monoglot British counterparts in global companies and organisations (Kinnock 2006:4). In the old world, Ireland and the UK (plus Portugal) open the list of Europeans with the lowest ratios of polyglots. The United States (in which it took a Supreme Court decision to abolish laws in over twenty states which, while ruling English the official language, proscribed the teaching of others in schools 4 ) also remains a linguistically unconcerned country: while immigrants are bringing in their home languages at record rates and gradually become multilingual, the vast majority of native-born citizens remain intractably monoglot (Crawford 1997).

The Language of Power and Prestige?

Language follows its own path. It can bridge gulfs of class and geography in the most remarkable ways. —Robert McCrum, British novelist, editor, and critic, in McCrum et al. (1986) The Story of English

English still stands for progress and economic potential, even if no longer colonial supremacy (though Queen Elizabeth II still remains the monarch of 16 sovereign states), an indicator of the level of education, social advancement and prestige. It is widely recognized as a window to success and a gateway to wealth—if not a gate-keeping device—by individuals (students, teachers, and others), organisations, and governments, especially as proficiency therein can no longer be said to denote membership of a privileged, educated elite (in the way in which the display of FL skills once served as an indicator of social class), rather a requisite, basic skill in jobs involving contact with

4 During WWI, there was a widespread campaign in the U.S. against the use of the German language, which included taking books in that language off library shelves (Martin 1988) and replacing words such as dachshund, hamburger, liverwurst and sauerkraut with liberty pups, Salisbury steak, liberty sausage and liberty cabbage. 38 customers or colleagues who may—just like yourself—be its non-native users, but sharing no other common language (Graddol 2006:38).

English as the Basic Skill

A generation ago, only elites such as diplomats and CEOs needed the language for work, but not knowing English nowadays may in some countries mean condemnation to privation and demotion to an excluded minority rather than majority of the population. New communities of English users are being created by the advance of the urban middle class (Graddol 2006:50). As one 12-year-old self-taught Sichuan learner professed, “If you can’ speak English, it’s like you’re deaf and dumb,” the sentiment echoed by one of the editors of the OED who said that any literate cultured person is in a very real sense deprived if s/he does not know the language (Burchfield 1985:160). English has become one of the basic, generic skills necessary to acquire new knowledge and specialist expertise in professional development (Graddol 2006:72), with success in life becoming contingent on success in English; a necessity becoming part of literacy. In an increasing number of countries English has been bereft of its function and separate place in the curriculum as a discipline—a foreign language—becoming instead a component of basic education, an ESP integrated with other subjects in projects such as CLIL/EMILÉ5, bringing with it changes in the learners, their needs, motives, the target of instruction, and the methodology—with disciplinary knowledge of language sometimes swept aside in favour of more pragmatic and fragmentary “‘can do’, ‘just in time’, ‘no more than is needed’” approaches to language learning (ibid.).

From the FL to the SL

In several Asian countries a language shift can be observed within families, with one of the best-documented cases being Singapore, where English advanced from the status of an L2 to the main language of the home (Graddol 2006:55). A similar diglossia phenomenon (the term 6 employed by Ferguson (1959) to refer to a conflict of two variants—a formal one of high prestige and a vernacular—also known as societal bilingualism) has occurred in Indian middle-class families where—especially when the mother and father may come from different linguistic backgrounds—family communication typically takes place via the medium of English (Graddol 2006:55). There are more countries in Asia which regard English as colonial inheritance—Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines—and use it as an official or de facto common language, mandatorily teaching it in all public and private schools and

5 Content and Language Integrated Learning/Enseignement d’une Matière par ’Intégration d’une Langue Étrangère, which refers to an equilibrium between content and language learning, where a non-linguistic subject is taught through the medium of a second/foreign language, and the L2 is developed through the non-linguistic content. The challenges in implementing CLIL are usually many, including shortage of teachers with the requisite skills in both subjects and training in content-based instruction, limited existing linguistic skills of the majority of students, and lack of time to achieve the academic level required (Jonathan Dykes, director of International House in Barcelona, quoted in Kessler 2005). 6 Although the French adaptation of the Greek διγλωσσία had already been introduced to French in the 19th c. by philologist Ioannis Psikharis (Psichari 1886, 1888), with Auguste Dozon (1889) rendering it as ‘bilinguisme’, and at the time of the publication of Ferguson’s paper the term was also being used in English, though not in the sociolinguistic meaning (Lubliner 2002). 39 helping it in its raid as an ever more valuable lingua franca (op. cit.:94); rather than Mandarin, it is English that provides the primary means of communicating with the Asian pace-setter—the PRC—which boosts a well-established tradition of teaching ESL. The country’s zeal for English, elevated to an epidemic magnitude by the recent accession to the World Trade Organisation and the 2008 Olympics, has even earned itself its own Mandarin term, Yingwen re, and over 400 English-teaching companies have been struggling to gain entry to China to tap in on the money (Power 2005). The Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympics was pushing English among staff, tourist guides, taxi drivers and the general public (op. cit.), with the government’s “great leap forward” drive to raise English language levels and standards of teaching nationwide predicted by professor Li Yong-tao from Shanghai University to create bilingual populations in major urban centres within the next decade (Gill 2004). Shanghai followed—with the purpose of becoming an international metropolis, backed by the World Expo slated for 2010— establishing a Committee of Experts to correct the English names on official signs as part of a city-wide English language promotion (Gill 2004). At the same time, since 2002 hundreds of teachers have been deployed to the UK for training, in order to cascade the methodology skills to others upon their return (alongside 32,000 Chinese students in 2003 alone). This is already delivering results; according to Jeff Streeter, head of the British Council in Shanghai, the general level of English in the Middle Kingdom has now well outdistanced Japan (Gill 2004). The World Chinese Physics Annual Symposium, held in Shanghai in August 2004 and attended exclusively by people of Chinese descent, ruled that Chinese be not allowed in speeches, making no exception for the opening and closing ceremonies (Gill 2004). In the eyes of some Chinese parents, English is more important than the mother tongue as it is strongly associated with better positions and promotion opportunities. No wonder this is electrifying the region, with Thailand, the Philippines, Japan, and Taiwan following in PRC’s footsteps. The 350m English users topped in Asia is roughly the combined population of the UK, U.S. and Canada (Power 2005).

The Advance of English in School Education

In education systems across Europe, English has little by little taken the lead as the mandatory first FL in schools, not infrequently ousting another that had been sitting in that position for decades. According to a Eurydice study of February 10 2005 (DPA) English is now the most widely-taught foreign or second language in primary and secondary schools throughout the 27-nation EU (except the Anglophone Member States, of course), with 89% of schoolchildren learning it (26% in the primary), followed by French with 32% (4%), German (18%), and Spanish (8%; EC 2006).

The Vehicle in Higher Education

At higher stages of education, with its rapid globalisation and colleges vying against one another on the international marketplace, English has become the primary medium of instruction in both English-speaking and non-Anglophone universities that take on foreign students. Partly responsible for the status of this ‘key ingredient’ has been the domination in the global 1st league in higher education of universities from the English- speaking world; the latest annual ranking provided by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University 40

Institute—a standard international reference—lists 17 U.S. and 2 UK universities in the lead, with institutions in English-speaking countries jointly occupying roughly two-thirds of the world’s top 100. It is also estimated that of the 2 to 3 million young people who travel abroad each year to study, over a third select the USA or UK as their destination, whilst all ‘major English-speaking destination countries’ admit around 46% of all international students (Graddol 2006:77). The total share of international students who are taught in English is over 50%, as an increasing number of countries, both in Europe and Asia, are offering courses taught through the medium of English. This is due to the fact that the language is a magnet for both an international student community, teaching staff, and researchers (for scholars desiring to gain fresh experience, English as the academic lingua franca facilitates international mobility; Graddol 2006:73, 75), and the chance to polish it is additionally being perceived as a key educational investment itself – especially as the students have contact with the professional jargon of their field, which no language course could guarantee. With an international student diaspora, out-of-class exchanges will also take place in the lingua franca, additionally enhancing the linguistic skills (apart from fostering intercultural awareness—which may not only promote personal growth, but also come useful when seeking employment in a foreign setting with a different work culture) and enabling to establish contacts. Furthermore, not infrequently better handbooks and scholarly aids are available in English, the relevant terminology is often better established and recognized than in the local language, not to mention to fact that—if one wishes to stay up to date with the latest rapid developments—95% of scholarly publications appear in English (even though only half of them come from authors in the ‘inner circle’; Science Citation Index 1997). Thus English is often selected by the writer in order to maximize the potential readership, even if the great majority of the target audience may be sharing the same native tongue. Consequently, in science a poor command of the language hinders a successful career, while improving proficiency may alone suffice to give confidence (Madeleine 2007). International scientific projects, no longer dependent on linguistic proximity, also rely on English as a shared language. English has thus now become a relay language rather than an end in itself. The Dutch have even been debating whether not to conduct all their higher education in the language of reference books and doctoral theses (Morrison 2002). Prominent—both short- and long-term—visiting scholars are an additional crowd- puller, as are the opportunities to spend part of the studies in a partner educational institution abroad. Even the chances of obtaining a scholarship for study in a foreign country are considerably higher. A diploma in a FL-medium program is a ticket to positions in both companies out of the country and renowned foreign-capital companies in one’s own land. Concurrently, the trend is going to expand owing to the copious successful examples of -medium distance education, with the growing strand of e- learning, and U.S., British and Australian universities establishing joint-venture and branch campuses overseas. For instance, in September 2005 the University of Nottingham opened two Asian outposts (in Malaysia and in the PRC), drawing transnational students wishing to study for a UK degree (Graddol 2006:79).

41

English in the Media, Entertainment, and Mass Culture

In the news media, English still remains—and becomes more and more widely used as— the preferred lingo for global reach, with several stations which had so far operated in other languages establishing channels in this lingua franca (Graddol 2006:46f.). English- language magazines and newspapers (such as Time or Newsweek) are available at newsagents’ around the world. On November 15 2006 Al Jazeera, whose English- language website (http://aljazeera.net/english/) established itself as a major source of news from the Arab region also for U.S. Internet users, releassed its new news and current affairs channel—Al Jazeera English—with regional headquarters in Doha, London, Washington and Kuala Lumpur, broadcasting to over 80 million cable and satellite households across the globe. Iran is working on its international channel code- named ‘Press’. Following the example of the radio station Voice of Russia (Голос России), launched by decree of president Boris Yeltsin on December 22, 1993, with the aim of familiarizing the world community with Russian life and presenting a ‘realistic’ picture of home events, which now beams in 31 foreign languages to 160 countries, a Kremlin-funded 24-hour English-language information channel ‘Russia Today’ began broadcasting in December 2005 to Europe, Asia and North America, with the primary objective to give Western viewers a positive image of the country, with news, business, sports, culture, and weather broadcasts (Borodina & Tirmaste 2005). After the successful bilingual model of the international ‘Deutsche Welle’, a French international news channel—France 24—began broadcasting on a 24/7 basis with the aim to offset the “unified, Anglo-Saxon” outlook, while a Kenyan photojournalist and media entrepreneur seeks to establish a 24-hour pan-African French-and-English news and information service, ‘A24’, an “African voice for Africa”, planned to debut by the end of this year. In this way, the media carry the language to once secluded areas where it was formerly only learnt in school, if at all. English pervades not only the serious news media, but also the movie industry (Hollywood), light entertainment broadcasting (mostly American TV shows and series), commercials, and U.S. mass culture which is present on every step of our daily life through fashion and designer shoes, comestibles, beverages, popular music, computers and high-tech (Chacón & Girardot 2006). All this additionally fosters the perception that English is ‘hip’.

Technology

[A]s the Internet comes increasingly to be viewed from a social perspective, so the role of language becomes central ... []hat is immediately obvious when engaging in any of the Internet's functions is its linguistic character. If the Internet is a revolution, therefore, it is likely to be a linguistic revolution. —David Crystal (2001) Language and the Internet.

A huge role in the global triumph of English has simultaneously been played by technology. The expanse of the Internet, which is replacing traditional modes of communication – not only in research and education, but also marketing, trade, 42 entertainment and hobbies; the exponential rise of IT, and the increasing availability of textual resources in the electronic format have enormously promoted the dissemination of scientific knowledge. It goes without saying that the primary language of publication is English (approx. ⅔, according to the British Council, reaching 80 per cent when it comes to all electronically stored information in the world; Power 2005), even though the majority of the texts may be being penned by professionals for whom it is not the native tongue. New technologies themselves are also helping users pick up the language: Chinese and Japanese students can obtain English-usage tips on their mobile phones, while MS® Office software will correct your spelling, grammar and style (Power 2005), and Dubliner Ken Carroll, following the success of his Chinesepod.com teaching Mandarin to English speakers, is delivering language learning to Chinese users through Englishpod.com podcast feeds.

The Lingua Franca of the 21st Century

keine unter allen neueren sprachen hat … eine größere kraft und stärke empfangen als die englische … sie darf mit vollem recht eine weltsprache heißen und scheint … ausersehen künftig noch in höherem maße an allen enden der erde zu walten (Jacob Grimm 1852:50)

The reason why this widely circulated and highly cultivated West Germanic dialect has gradually become the planet’s predominant language for international communication is that, in David Crystal’s (1997:8) words, “it was in the right place at the right time.” Although English did not attain its present status in other parts of the world until the late 20th c., a key role in instituting it as a language of local use in locations across the globe was ultimately played by five centuries of colonial expansion of the British Empire— particularly following the great expansion of British naval military power and commerce in the 17th and 18th c.—the Commonwealth of Nations, and – particularly after World War II—the economic primacy, political importance (or neo-imperialism), cultural influences and technological exports of the U.S. (hence it is, essentially, a by-product of imperialism). While ‘lingua franca’ initially denoted an established trading-language variety (House 2006), or a formal language of diplomacy such as français from the 17th century until its recent dislodgment in the wake of World War II, over the years English has ascertained itself as the means of interaction not only in commerce and business parley, but also diplomacy, scientific symposia, entertainment, and wherever the speakers of ‘rarer’ (or simply different) languages need to communicate with either their similars or users of the ‘dominant’ language (House 2000:245). It is used both in the public and private spheres, occupying a prominent place in international academic and business communities (“the linguistic equivalent of the business suit, slipped into for official occasions;” de Lotbinière 2001), by international treaty it is the official language of aviation and maritime communication (Airspeak and Seaspeak, respectively, designed by Edward Johnson in the 1980s), of most international athletic organisations (including the Olympic Committee), and the language of backpackers travelling across continents. 43

English opens the list of the world’s ten most influential languages, compiled by Weber (1997) after weighing six factors7. Where the global importance of a language would once be determined by the number—and prosperity—of its native users, with the declining veneration of NSs as the ‘gold standard’ for English, of growing significance in ensuring the status of a world language are the second/foreign language speaker populations. This importance of non-native use of the language was already recognized in 1985 by sociolinguist Braj B. Kachru, who is best known for introducing the representation of the global diaspora of English speakers in terms of three concentric circles: - the ‘inner’ or ‘core’ one representing NSs from predominantly English-speaking countries (UK, U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), - the ‘outer’ one consisting of SL speakers, where English (actually, indigenous, full-fledged and functionally adequate varieties thereof, yet non-native or ‘non- standard’ ones; Kachru 1966, 1986, 1992) is in wide use as the additional official language of the country (e.g. former colonies or current dependent territories of the UK and the U.S., such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania, , or the Philippines), - and the ever ‘expanding’ or ‘fringe’ circle comprising the learners of English as a foreign language in countries where it is neither an official language nor a former colonial language, but where it is nevertheless increasingly part of many people’s skills, influential in trade, tourism, etc. (e.g. continental Europe, the Arab world, China, Japan, or Mexico). Today, however, English being a pluricentric language with no Founding Fathers of its constitution and no central linguistic administration, regional and inter-speaker variation exists even in the inner circle. Various forms of standard British and American, Australian, Canadian, New Zealand, Jamaican, South African, and Hiberno-Englishes exist, in many cases including several subvarieties, such as , , , , Anglo-Québec, AAVE, Chicano, Yooper, or Southern American… (G. Cook 2003:26).8 In the outer circle, “English is ... at home in much of the South and Southeast and parts of Africa to that extent that we can speak of , , or Indian9 English as we do American or ” (professor Margie Berns, quoted in PhysOrg 2005). The various Englishes you hear in the streets of Glasgow, Delhi, Brisbane, the Bronx, Cape Town and Kingston—leaving aside their local cultural conventions and pragmatic norms—may well become mutually incomprehensible10 (Morrison 2002).

7 Number of primary and secondary speakers, number and population of countries where used, economic power of the countries, number of major fields using the language internationally, and socio-literary prestige. 8 Not to mention the fact that the inner circle is no longer 100% English-speaking; this is probably particularly visible in the United States, with the huge growth of the 4% quota of the population speaking little or no English since the 2000 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2003), but also on the British Isles since the enlargement of the EU. Importantly, this diffusion is not confined to any distinct, geographically or culturally isolated enclave, but is rather spread throughout the country. On both sides of the Atlantic, the demand for affordable adult ESL programs far outpaces supply, with thousands on waiting lists. 9 or Indo-Pakistani 10 Such differences also exist within the boundaries of one country; the BBC Voices Language Lab website welcomes you with the words: “In Liverpool, you’re made up; in the , you’re bostin. All around the UK, you’re chuffed.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/results/wordmap/) I am here leaving aside texts requiring expertise in a 44

Additionally, the long-established notion of SL speakers as using the language for communication within their country of residence has become adulterated and no longer reflects the current state of affairs. It has been predicted, for instance, that in countries such as the Nordic ones with relatively ‘small’ languages, English is moving from FL to SL status, replacing ‘Scandinavian’ in inter-Nordic encounters (Viereck 1996; Hoffman 2000). With the greater than ever necessity to rate proficiency in the language rather than the linguistic background (Graddol 2006:110), Kachru (2004) replaced his earlier oft- cited ‘us-and-them’ paradigm with a spatial continuum where the ‘inner circle’ is conceived of as embracing highly proficient speakers of English, “those who have ‘functional nativeness’ regardless of how they learned or use the language” (Graddol 2006:110). This recognizes the fact that many individuals in the outer and expanding circles use English just as expertly as NSs, exhibiting only minor differences in their linguistic ability (e.g. in grammaticality judgments), while at the same time having a command of the language which is often “accompanied by additional expertise which a traditionally defined NS may not have” (G. Cook 2003:29) Also in language teaching, nativeness ceases to become an issue. Thus, for instance, the issue in South Korea is not who is a native speaker, but who speaks “better” English – which is why the students there prefer e.g. Canadians to Australians or New Zealanders (Ezberci & Snyder 2006). The numbers for English are going to crest even higher as a now astounding number of governments (e.g. Colombia, Mongolia, South Korea, and Taiwan) declare an intention to establish English as a second official language (Graddol 2006:87), following the model of not the UK or the U.S., but of virtually bilingual countries such as Singapore, Finland and the Netherlands. Importantly, rather than monolingual native speakers of English, they are increasingly likely to hunt for bilingual language teachers (ibid.). At the same time, the variety of English that is going to develop in these populous states will again leave the language as we know it not unaffected, thus reiterating the process that has undergone since it became distinct from its British forebear in the 18th century.

Anti-NS-hegemony Rationale

In academic discourse, women are not said to speak worse than men, nor Black English people worse than white, nor New Yorkers worse than Bostonians, however large the differences may be between these groups. While we can learn something by comparing apples with pears, apples inevitably make rather poor pears, however delicious. (Cook 2002:9)

specialised field, which will probably be gobbledygook to an native speaker unfamiliar with the rules of the games, such as the following two excerpts quoted by Crystal (2006): Brown was hit in the helmet by a Jim Taylor pitch in the top of the eighth inning and was down at home plate for three minutes. (baseball) Hussein has placed two slips and a gully and a backward short-leg for the occasional ball zipping in off the seam. (cricket) 45

Traditionally, native speakers of English have both been acknowledged to present the authoritative point of reference to be emulated, and extolled to be the best language teachers, “the final arbiters of quality and authority” (Graddol 2006:114). They have been assumed to know the language better, to epitomize exemplary, “unaccented” pronunciation and not make mistakes, to use an extensive range of appropriate lexical items and—with all the words ‘at their fingertips’—to have fewer problems with lexis which they might not know coming up unpredictably in class, 11 to be au fait with proverbs, turns of phrase and clichés, to better help the learners develop oral and communication skills, to navigate the culture of an English-dominant society at ease, being more fluent to take less time putting their message acress, to be more ‘hip’ and encouraging, more successful in enforcing use of English only in the classroom, finding it by and large easier to win learners’ confidence, and—especially in the case of meagre training, experience, or reflection—to be confident in the accuracy and appropriacy of their own speech (cf. e.g. Atkinson 1993:7; Al-Hamly et al. 2006). After a period of long- standing and simplistic NS fallacy, an either/or taxonomy where NESTs were simply treated as superior, plentiful discourse on N/NS dichotomy emerged in the 1990s, dealing with the complementary fortes—and limitations—of both professional groups, heavily focused on the assets that NNESTs bring into the classroom. Although not tolling the death knell for native speakers, a plethora of convincing arguments both behind the rationale against the questionable hegemony of the native English speaker (as the teacher and as the norm) and for the strengths and special resources that non-Anglo teachers bring to the language classroom call for urgent recognition, and the idyllic epoch when “native speakers can bask in their privileged knowledge of the global lingua franca” is drawing to a close (Graddol 2006:118).

Defining the Native Speaker

‘native speaker’ in the linguist’s sense of arbiter of grammaticality and acceptability of language ... represents an ideal, a convenient fiction, or a shibboleth rather than a reality —Thomas . Paikeday (1985:x)

Who is a ‘native speaker’? Nayar (1994) lists the following components which—alone or in combination, assuming prominence according to the exigencies and emergencies of the circumstances—can be treated as the defining features: a) Primacy in order of acquisition b) Manner and environment of acquisition c) Acculturation by growing up in the speech community d) Phonological, linguistic and communicative competence e) Dominance, frequency and comfort of use ) Ethnicity g) Nationality/domicile h) Self-perception of linguistic identity i) Other-perception of linguistic membership and eligibility

11 But what is wrong with the teacher’s looking them up? As Atkinson (1993:18) rationalises, “if you don’t know the answer to something, don’t assume it’s because you’re not a native speaker!” 46

) Monolinguality (Nayar 1994:3) Following the MIT practice, this idealized notion, defined by Chomsky (1965) as a fully competent, monolingual member of a homogeneous speech diaspora, unaffected by variation due to social milieu, emotional states, or cognitive processes (such as cessation of learning) has become the object of inquiry in linguistics. Under this view, linguistic competence is contemplated as a monolithic construct, free from socio- and psycholinguistic changeability (House & Kasper 2000:102). This ‘Chomskyan homunculus’ (Schlieben-Lange 1974) has been forcefully criticized as an inadequate object of (socio-)linguistic inquiry by sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1972, 1979), who questioned the conception of the ideal speaker-hearer as a ‘Garden of Eden’ myth, highly unrealistic as well as largely irrelevant to many applied concerns (such as studies of language impairment), positing instead the existence of differential competence within a heterogeneous speech community. To aggravate matters, the object of research in SLA is precisely not fully competent in the language under study, but only developing that knowledge, at a position diametrically distinct from that occupied by a NS. The conventional applied linguistics paradigm of SLA and FLL hardly ever considers the L2 speaker as someone other than a learner (Vivian Cook being a notable exception here, unswervingly employing the empowering label ‘L2 user’). Furthermore, with more and more attention being currently paid to bi-/multilingualism from a sociolinguistic stance, brought into focus are the possession of more than just one linguistic competence in one individual—with no complete expertise in the S/FL required—and, consequently, language use rather than acquisition. House and Kasper (2000:103) illustratively depict the differing object of linguistic inquiry in the disciplines as follows:

MIT LinguisticsSLA Bilingualism object of inquiry Bilingual NS NNS, Learner Speaker development – + – full competence + – +/– homogeneous speech + –/+ – community Table 1. Descriptors of research object in three linguistic disciplines (House & Kasper 2000:103)

One more dimension is worth adding here. While Pennycook (1998) claims the NS construct to be a legacy of colonialism, where employment opportunities were guarded outside Britain for those born on the Isles, it seems that the definition (together with the associated kudos and hiring penchant in the TESOL industry) is not an immutable one, but has now shifted over to “the dominant Anglo-American identity” (Canagarajah 2005), reflecting the locus of geopolitical power. In a number of Asian countries the designation ‘NS teacher’ has been relaxed to embrace teachers from India and Singapore (Graddol 2006:115), once again indicative of a re-evaluation of learners’ needs, wants and aspirations. Interestingly and somewhat ironically, the authority derived from being a NS is sometimes less claimed or asserted by the person concerned than it is endowed in him/her by the learners or institutional structures (Renner 1994:9). 47

A Mere Accident of Birth

The accent of one's birthplace remains in the mind and in the heart as in one's speech. —François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld, le Prince de Marcillac, French author of maxims and memoirs (1665) Reflexions ou Sentences et Maximes Morales. Paris: Claude Barbin.

The only certain fact about NS teachers is that they are NSs (by a mere accident of birth, let us add) – the sole determinant for qualification as a NEST being the country of birth and concomitant accent (more often than not coupled with ‘Caucasian’ skin colour; thus, in a lot of situations, it will be ethno-political criteria that will have primacy over others in deciding the eligibility for the NS status – consider the parallel entrenchment of the traditional WASP concept). All the other nationals, irrespective of their linguistic expertise, will be dubbed NNSs. If this “finders keepers” stance is immaterial to the goals of language pedagogy, it is no longer of consequence (Cook 2002), and the pernicious and debatable prevalence on the basis of birth and territory ought to be done away with.

Unimpressive Approval Ratings Among Learners Themselves

L2-ers themselves do not buy into the NS fallacy and are “comparatively lukewarm about native speaker teachers” (Cook 2002; cf. also Ferguson 2005; Al-Hamly et al. 2006; Muramatsu & Meadows 2006). Even NESTs themselves realize that being a native speaker should not be an issue in employment, evaluating the teaching strengths of NNESTs a bit higher than their own (Ezberci & Snyder 2006).

NSs’ L1 Attrition

In EFL settings, being non-native environments for NS teachers, their competence (e.g. on grammaticality judgment tasks) begins to fluctuate (Porte 2003) and becomes ‘contaminated’; their performance also begins to oscillate after years spent in a different surrounding with two languages coexisting in parallel. Intense contact with another language which becomes the dominant one over a period of time in most situations leads to one language seeping into the other and some sort of non-pathological decay—or attrition—of the recessive L1, i.e., unconscious restructuring in order to extend rules and embrace grammatical structures of the L2 as its own, knocking previously acquired L1 properties off-balance and leading to scenarios where utterances are produced which monolingual speakers do not say or find anomalous (Seliger 1996; Cuza 2001; Tsimpli et al. 2002; Gürel 2004; Cuza & Pérez-Leroux 2006).12 This ‘forgetting’ of bits and pieces of the L1 can occur on the phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and discourse level, separately or simultaneously (Prescher 2006).

12 We are thus dealing with a mild form of subtractive bilingualism, where the addition of a second language leads to gradual erosion of competence in the L1 (as opposed to additive bilingualism, where a SL is adjoined without any cost to L1 competence, which may lead to practically balanced bilingualism). Interestingly, attrition is also hit upon in the grammars of translators, suggesting that the translation process can be treated as a very special situation of language contact (Cardinaletti 2005). 48

Contamination Within the ‘Inner Circle’

A community is known by the language it keeps, and its words chronicle the times… Like the growth rings of a tree, our vocabulary bears witness to our past. —John Algeo (1991:1) Fifty Years Among the New Words

The ‘contamination’ is no longer contained to the context abroad; with the influx of migrant labour into the UK, Ireland, the U.S., and other ‘inner circle’ countries, the last strongholds of linguistic purity have been captured and converted into highly multilingual melting cauldrons. London is currently widely regarded as the most multilingual and cosmopolitan city in the world, with over 300 languages (more than in NYC) spoken by its 7.3m residents, 200 nationalities represented among its 370,000 students, over 30 per cent of the population—born outside England—describing themselves as not British, tens of thousands more being second or third generation immigrants, and over fifty non- British communities with more than 10,000 people, according to a 2000 census (EL Gazette #315, March 2006). Since the enlargement of the EU in 2004, the number of migrant workers from new accession countries has soared, adding to the refugees and already settled communities. With Great Britain having elected to lift restrictions on migrant workers and the freedom of labour movement within the EU, new linguistic diasporas—especially from Eastern Europe—have emerged even in many smaller British towns, becoming the lifeblood of the country’s economy.13 Over the Atlantic, in vast areas of the U.S. monolingualism is declining with the growth of Hispanification and the inflow of students and immigrants from Asia or post- Soviet countries. Nationwide, one in five children—i.e., over 9 million ELLs—enters school speaking a language other than English (with over 400 different home languages represented, Spanish with 70% being the predominant one), marking a growth by more than 169% from 1979 to 2003, with roughly 5.5 m designated as Limited English Proficiency, and expected to reach 30% of school-aged population in 2015 (Francis 2006). The country boasts the fifth-largest Spanish speaking population in the world (after Mexico, Columbia, Spain, and Argentina), owing to the growing Hispanic communities and increasing popularity of Latin American films and music. In south- western states bilingual signs are a common sight, while in Hawai`i, New Mexico and Louisiana—in an effort to appease segregation—English is no longer the sole official

13 On the other hand, more and more Britons are leaving their homeland seeking a higher standard of living, lower outlay, and a more welcoming climate: 184,000 British nationals moved overseas in 2004 and more than 198,000 a year later, bringing the total number of British citizens living abroad to 5.5 m (Sriskandarajah & Drew 2006), while— according to a recent BBC survey—over half of the Islanders are or have been considering leaving the country for good, with 13% planning to emigrate soon (compared with 7% for 2003), the number rising from year to year. According to the World Bank, Great Britain is in the disreputable lead of countries unable to keep educated people; every sixth university graduate takes up a job abroad for a renumeration much higher than s/he could obtain at home. As per a report of the Centre for Future Studies, the number of people leaving the UK to work abroad will be six times higher, with young people seeking work experience even in such remote lands as China. Essentially, it is not only the young, but also OAPs who are emigrating, mostly to Australia, Spain, France, and Jamaica. This means that the share of ‘native speakers’ in the very cradle of the English language is going to shrink further, while at the same time increasing the impact of the lingo elsewhere. 49

language. In Canada, Québec is one of the places where L1-English speakers are also in the minority. Obviously, all these changes bring about new linguistic realities, expectations, and interactions, which cannot go without influencing the local language in some way; although in contexts of strong diglossia it is usually the vernacular that gets contaminated by the ‘standard’, the reverse obviously takes place as well.

The Dilemma of Variety Choice

The average Southerner has the speech patterns of someone slipping in and out of consciousness. I can change my shoes and socks faster than most people in Mississippi can speak a sentence. —Bill Bryson, American writer, editor, and journalist (1989:Ch. 7) The Lost Continent.

Another valid question that presents itself is: which of the sociolinguistic varieties should we choose as the most relevant to the learner’s needs? RP, the ‘upper-class twit’ which used to be regarded as the most authoritative, yet is today spoken by no more than 20% (with some sources—e.g. Macaulay 1988—claiming the actual number to be no greater than 3%) of the British population? Already in the 19th c. Mark Twain observed that “[t]here is no such thing as ‘the Queen’s English.’ The property has gone into the hands of a joint stock company and we own the bulk of the shares!” (1897:ch. XXIV). To aggravate matters, a phonetic analysis of Queen Elisabeth II’s speech revealed that her pronunciation has been slowly, imperceptibly—and probably unwittingly—changing, moving from upper class accent to the more common ‘standard’ (Polish Press Agency report, Dec 5 2006). Under a new curriculum UK schools are cutting themselves off from the prescriptive ethos of the past 250 years (Crystal 2006), while the Brits in the streets no longer feel that social progress is contingent upon ‘BBC English’ (which is itself no longer dominated by RP, but displays a palette of regional dialects). Should it perhaps be General American, then (or the dialect of Bostonians, who “pahk their cah in Hahvahd Yahd [and] name their daughters Sheiler and Linder” (Pinker 2000:176), or whatever it may be nowadays14), considering the fact that it is the U.S. that now boasts more native English speakers than the rest of the world combined (67 to 70 per cent, according to Crystal 1997)? Or maybe something else? Teachers are increasingly challenged to select the most appropriate variety for different circumstances, and mere distribution of major English NS dialects is of doubtful help.

Patrician Twit or Laissez-faire ELFish?15

Why should English-speaking people who sound as if they come from Houston be accepted as L1 successes when Polish people speaking

14 And then, consider whether you’d rather teach ‘sofa’, ‘couch’, ‘settee’, or ‘davenport’ for the piece of furniture? ‘Grinder’, ‘sub’, ‘hoagie’, or ‘hero’ for the stuffer? And would your learners then understand a Scotsman or a Kiwi? 15 The issues raised in this subsection I discussed in detail at the International Conference on Native and Non-native Accents of English (ACCENTS 2007) at the University of Łódź on Dec. 5, 2007. 50

English are deemed L2 failures for sounding as if they come from Warsaw?

A French winegrower once said, perfectly sensibly, “My English is not good but my French accent is perfect.” (Cook 1999a:195f.)

The question: “Whose language should be taught?” does not restrict itself to the native varieties only. The majority of communication and exchange taking place in English today does not involve monolingual native speakers of this language, but multilingual non-native users, making them the norm rather than an exception to the rule. The answer will then not be ‘the only legitimate language’ you hear in American chat shows and action series or British soaps and comedies, but an assortment of assimilated varieties, with a sufficient ‘common core’ for interpersonal communication but not infrequently quite distinct from their ancestor. The language used by the world’s (roughly) two billion speakers thus seems to have liberated itself from the fetters conventionally shackling it to national identity, upsetting its ethno-cultural image (Nayar 1994:1). Yet, while the majority of learners may discover—whether by initial lack of intention or subsequent lack of opportunity—that their interaction with so-called NSs (if it has ever been present there in the first place) does not extend beyond the classroom, they are still being taught varieties that are more appropriate to conversation among native speakers in Brighton or Baltimore (Jenkins 2004; Matsuda 2003:719). Who, then, is to be the arbiter of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’? The question is, do we want to teach ENL as a foreign language, or would a more legitimate instructional goal be a lingua franca, a medium of international communication (and, perhaps, survival dealings with NSs as well, where necessary, e.g. during travel), approaching communication between non-natives in sui generis terms (vide e.g. Meierkord & Knapp 2002)? Typically, such communication is sited in the expanding circle, but its reach goes beyond this context (Melchers & Shaw 2003:179), and it is anchored in the need to create discourse comprehensible to interlocutors at different levels of competence in English across a diverse range of situations (Jenkins 2004; Seidlhofer 2004; Sifakis 2004). A NS model quickly loses in relevance, and the new evolving hybrid lingoes will increasingly look to continental Europe or Asia for their norms of correctness and appropriateness rather than grounding them in UK or U.S. uses. Researchers such as Jennifer Jenkins and Barbara Seidlhofer have began to study NNSs’ ‘mistakes’ as structured grammars, in the conviction that FL users should be freed from the homunculus status as ‘learners’ and ‘incompetent communicators’, instead given credit as interactants with complex communicative goals and strategies to implement these (House & Kasper 2000:115f.), and encouraged to pride themselves on their status as bilinguals. The Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand have already adopted curricula teaching an international variety of English, using local educators as linguistic models (Liptrot 2006). Proponents of teaching ELF call for a radical reappraisal of the practice of English- language teaching and assessment, which should reflect the needs and aspirations of the ever-growing number of users who communicate with other non-natives. Graddol 51

(2006:82) reminds us that EFL as we know it today, with its anachronistic emphasis on emulating ‘perfect’ NS linguistic behaviour, focus on grammatical accuracy, a rich repertoire of idioms and native-like pronunciation, “is a largely 19th-century creation, though drawing on centuries of experience in teaching classical languages.” Jennifer Jenkins (2002), expert in at the University of Southampton, asks why e.g. Asians should spend hours practicing the [Τ] phoneme (infrequent in the world’s languages), if international pilots already enunciate the word “three” as [τρι⎤] in radio dispatches, since the latter is more widely comprehensible (Power 2005). In addition, as NSs themselves speak with accents that diverge from the ‘standard’ one might wonder if the enormous time, effort and resources used up polishing these sounds are warranted and why the FL learner should be required to master those distinctions.16 A speaker can be perceived as native in some parts of the Anglosphere and as foreign in others. There is no need for most learners to speak English like an American, Briton, or Aussie; the main issue is mutual intelligibility and the relevant context of use. Using the Vienna Oxford International Corpus of English (VOICE) in her research into ELF lexicogrammar, Barbara Seidlhofer (e.g. 2004) in turn found that no major disruption in communication happens when the speakers commit such ‘cardinal sins’ as applying the same present tense verb root to all persons17, omitting or confusing an article or the gerundive ending, using relative pronouns ‘who’ and ‘which’ interchangeably, or indiscriminately inserting ‘isn’t it?’ as a universal question tag. Consequently, Jenkins & Seidlhofer (2001) make the case that the time necessary to teach and learn such redundant hallmarks of NS English—which many learners fail to use ‘correctly’ even after years of instruction, especially in unmonitored production—correlates weakly with their communicative usefulness. ELF should thus—in relevant contexts—be accorded a status similar to that bestowed upon ‘native’ varieties. Salikoko S. Mufwene (e.g. 2001:ch. “The Legitimate and Illegitimate Offspring of English,” 2007) argues that we are not justified in regarding the evolution of English through contact and adaptation involving NSs as natural and allowable, while that involving NNSs as being in some way ‘contaminated’ by ‘interference’, when whole swathes of speakers apply these forms routinely and successfully in EIL contexts. Yet, despite being frequently conscious of theories of language acquisition and applied linguistics in general, the vast majority of teachers “still tend to measure student performance against a native-speaker, error-free absolute, even at beginner levels” (Keddle 2004:45)18, perhaps in an attempt to forbear permissiveness and a ‘decline in standards’. In both second and foreign language pedagogy, grammar and pronunciation

16 Especially as in English—unlike, perhaps, French—it is rhythm and intonation that are of prime importance, not the individual sounds. 17 Notice that this, incidentally, is also found in some ‘substandard’ varieties of native-speaker English. Similarly, embedded questions displaying subject-auxiliary inversion are considered well-formed in Belfast English (Henry 1995); the apostrophe is being dropped in more and more Saxon genitive contexts, both on the Soggy Isles and over the Atlantic; numerals in Ebonics do not always induce agreement (cf. “50 cent”); while when I was checking out from a Florida motel a day after taking a shower mysteriously resulted in the flooding of my bedroom carpet (which I cheerily reported to the staff, yet recommendation that I move rooms never left the reception), the indigenous desk clerk asked me “You wasn’t informed?” 18 This comparative focus dates back to Selinker’s (1972) recipe for research design in interlanguage study (inherited in turn from Contrastive Analysis), where one set of NNS data—the IL—was juxtaposed against two different sets of NS data—the language user’s L1 and the TL. Bley-Vroman warned against this ‘comparative fallacy’ in interlanguage research already in 1983; Kasper (e.g. 1992) did the same in the context of interlanguage pragmatics. 52 teaching has been oriented towards inner-circle norms and standards rather than the intelligibility constraints of each communicative situation (Sifakis 2004), safeguarding the NS norm-bound position and treating NS accent and ‘good accent’ as one (Platt & Weber 1984; Nayar 1989). This still constitutes the footing for decades of tradition in the theory and practice of English language pedagogy, and a vein of gold for those born in the ‘right’ land – no wonder those with a vested interest in preserving the power dynamics persist in promoting and perpetuating the status quo. It is not only practitioners, but researchers as well who have fallen into the rut of assessing learners’ developing competence and performance not as an achievement in sui generis terms, but gauged against the NS ‘standard’. Even seemingly objective SLA theories and research (e.g. Schumann 1978; Krashen 1982) found themselves unknowingly trapped in the web of linguistic élitism, as in both cross-sectional and longitudinal developmental studies as well as ones on L2 use the tendency has been to consider differences discerned or imputed between NNSs and NSs as deviant, deficient, or inappropriate on the part of the ‘learners’ (but see e.g. Siegal (1996) and House & Kasper (2000) for a different view), and primarily basing on inspection of language learning in an immersion setting. Within the traditional FL approach there has been an inevitable intrinsic positioning of the learner as an outsider, an alien, struggling to gain acceptance swotting what will forever be someone else’s mother tongue, and therefore a failure – however proficient s/he becomes, when evaluated against the yardstick19 of NS judgments and idealized performance, few L2-ers will be on target: “relative to native speaker’s linguistic competence, learners’ interlanguage is deficient by definition” (Kasper & Kellerman 1997:5). With the authority and evaluation of a learner’s performance vested in the NS, the tendency is to view the former as a deficient latter: “[u]ntil he has reached full native-like command of the foreign language, the learner, qua learner, may be regarded as always being on his way towards this full command” (van Ek 1973/80:95). As such, “[t]he learner is constructed as a linguistic tourist – allowed to visit, but without rights of residence and required always to respect the superior authority of native speakers” (Graddol 2006:83). This unfortunate ‘difference = deficit equation’, resting on the monoglot NS positioned as the incontestable benchmark of competence and communicative success, and viewing the—by definition—bi-/multilingual NNS as a ‘learner’ and ‘incompetent communicator’ whose performance is to be penalized as ‘deficient’ or ‘wrong’ the instant it starts to ‘deviate’ from the ‘golden standard’, needs to be urgently and fundamentally reconsidered. Though it may hold true in specific instances, “it is certainly wrong in its absolute form” (House & Kasper 2000:108; cf. also Kramsch 1993, 1998). This chauvinistic, ‘imperialist’ perspective is still prevalent in the format of many English proficiency examinations (University of Cambridge ESOL, LCCI’s ELSA, ETS, IELTS, TOEFL, TOEIC), passing which is in many countries a condition for gaining access to educational opportunities, graduation or promotion, although postulates have been raised that the testing instruments implemented by the major EFL examination bodies should deemphasize traditional NS models assigning more prominence to the intercultural communicative competence of their candidates (Andrews & Fay 2000;

19 Consider the inaptness of the word when the imperial measure of ‘yard’ is obscure or totally meaningless for probably no less than ¾ of the speakers at best; the irony has been further spiced up by Britain’s desertion of imperial measures for the metric system! 53

Sifakis & Sougari 2005:483). Simultaneously, ENL is also the language designated worldwide as the target in teaching materials, whether invented by their NS authors or ‘authentic’, corpus-attested. Paradoxically, even many of those who need the language for international communication believe in the importance of native-like pronunciation and regard non-native varieties as deficient. Within ELF, of primary importance is intelligibility, requiring a focus on problems contributing to communicative breakdown rather than on native-like accuracy or a specific variety of the language (Jenkins 2000) – a native-speaker accent may seem way too remote from that of our learners’ prospective interlocutors. This, too, is why teaching ELF—unlike traditional EFL—should also include a focus on pragmatic strategies necessary in intercultural communication (Graddol 2006:87), since failing to navigate cultural differences may lead to problems in international relations, business, and even travel (PhysOrg 2005). We may refer here to Michael Byram’s model of Intercultural Communicative Competence, which expands the concept of ‘communicative competence’ beyond mere exchange of information. The ICC stands for the ability to interact in a FL with people from another country and culture, to act as a mediator between persons of different cultural origins, to use the language appropriately, being aware of its specific meanings, values and connotations (as opposed to intercultural competence, which denotes the ability to interact in one’s own language, e.g. interpreting a translated document; 1997:70f.). 54

Figure 2. Intercultural Communicative Competence (Byram 1997:73)

In this model, Byram readjusts van Ek’s (1986) concepts of abilities by replacing the NS with the attainable goal of a competent intercultural speaker. ICC contains linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse & intercultural components—each inter-related with others (but not requiring equal weight)—as well as factors involved in intercultural competence (which can be acquired through individual experience and reflection, without necessitating the mediation of the teacher): - skills; the ability to interpret documents or events in another culture and one’s own—drawing therein upon existing knowledge—and to discover further knowledge where necessary (Byram 1997:84): of interpreting and relating (savoir comprendre), establishing relationships between aspects of the two cultures, and o of discovery and interaction (savoir apprendre/faire), the ability to analyse data from one’s own and another country and the potential relationships, to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices, to identify significant phenomena (icons) in a foreign environment, elicit their meanings, connotations, and broader relationships, and to operate this 55

knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time communication and interaction (op. cit.:98f.), - attitudes (savoir etre), of interest, curiosity and openness, the readiness to suspend disbelief and judgment about others’ meanings and behaviours as well as the willingness to question the assumptions of one’s own and to analyse them from the viewpoint of others – i.e., the ability to ‘decentre’ (Kohlberg et al. 1983), anticipating and where possible resolving dysfunctions in communication and behaviour (op. cit.:34, 84), - knowledge (savoirs), a) of the culture of at least one country where a given language is spoken and parallel phenomena in one’s own (op. cit.:84), and b) of the processes of interaction at individual and societal levels (op. cit.:35), and - critical cultural awareness (savoir s’engager), the ability to critically evaluate perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries (op. cit.:33). The necessity of a paradigm shift in ELT methodology is particularly important in view of the findings of e.g. Seidlhofer (2001:147) that grammatical accuracy by itself does not warrant mutual understanding in lingua-franca settings; thus, one needs to reconsider what should now be regarded as a suitable level of proficiency in the language. A development in a new direction is the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001), which, while attempting to provide a uniform approach to attainment levels across European languages and to promote and quickly develop across-the-board plurilingualism among the citizens, instead of focusing on aspects of failure employs the concept of positive ‘can do’ statements. Rather than the deprecating comparative assessment, Kasper (1997:310) likewise calls for a more careful shift of the baseline, which will be consequential not only in FL teaching and assessment, but also for obtaining valid research results. The CEF also aims at abandoning the derogatory vantage point in favour of describing language learners’ performance “in terms of what they can be expected to achieve at a particular level relative to the hours they have studied a language, and the average way in which a student at that level performs” (Keddle 2004:45). Hence, linguistically ‘tainted’ but effective performance can now be regarded as success (relative the given level, obviously) rather than failure.

NNSs Equally Successful Models

Non-native speaker teachers can serve as equally effective models of the target language and win their students’ confidence. An effective language teacher need not necessarily be one who can be mistaken for an autochthon of Kachru’s (1985) ‘inner circle’. Moreover, where the teacher was an immigrant to an English-speaking country and remains there to teach ESL, his/her personal experiences will put him/her in an even better position to identify with those of the learners.

Paragons of Linguistic Competence Among NNSs

But even if native-speaker competence were a criterion, there have been numerous cases of foreigners whose proficiency in grammar, speaking or writing—or knowledge of English-speaking cultures—surpassed that of most NS users of the language. There are 56 countless remarkable NNSs who possess a sizeable lexicon and a wide repertoire of styles, able to communicate across diverse communities and situations, exceeding that of NSs of English. Those who learn the language consciously, mastering every word both in its phonetic shape and written form at the same time, will additionally make fewer—if any—spelling errors; they will probably also master the rules of textbook grammar before speaking the colloquial lingo (cf. Lubliner 2002). On the other hand, consider also the contributions to the richness of the English literary tradition of figures from around the world such as André Aciman, Monica Ali, Iosif Brodsky, Józef Conrad Korzeniowski, Edwidge Danticat, Anita Desai, Jessica Hagedorn, Eva Hoffman, Kazuo Ishiguro, Ha Jin, Vladimir Nabokov, . S. Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, Jhumpa Vourvoulias, or Derek Walcott, to name but a few, who were in part able to do so by not being bound by all the conventionality and standards internalized by NSs from childhood, writing in English— sometimes as a matter of anguished choice—often to depict worlds that may seem alien to the ‘inner circle’.

Mutual Miscomprehension Problems

In the ‘international’ use of English it has frequently been pointed out that during training courses, conferences, symposia and similar meetings non-native speakers communicate in a manner that is clearer and easier to understand for other non-natives than the casual rapid vernacular and pronunciation of indigenous British or American interactants, who rarely exercise conscious control over their language, which is frequently awash with rare words and idiomatic expressions (and by this I do not mean country/western or hip-hop lyrics or urban ‘street’ lingo). RP is not necessary to receive applause. With research showing how poorly some NSs fare in international communication, some authors go as far as to encourage incorporation of elements of an ELF syllabus within a mother tongue curriculum (Graddol 2006:87). Similarly, when contingents of peacekeeping forces are stationed in an explosive region, the locals notoriously demand non-NES negotiators – not just because of the communicative ease, but also because of the preference of talking to persons who will not be mistrusted for their air of superiority. Analogously, where it comes to translation, texts produced by non-natives are frequently preferred over idiomatic and elaborate concoctions of Britons or Americans which, though formally perfect, for the reader may require recurrent thumbing through a dictionary. Documents which have been rendered by NNSs are favoured in offices for whose staff English is not the NL, owing to their greater transparency, even if not perfect well-formedness or idiomaticity. Translations are typically more comprehensible for readers whose language is the same as—or at least typologically related to—that of the translator, thus sharing the same or similar paraphrase relations and structures (as native- tongue constructions influence the understanding of L2 texts). It has also been noted that in organisations, businesses and law-making institutions where English has become the corporate language, meetings sometimes proceed more smoothly in the absence of NSs (Graddol 2006:115).

NS-NS Interactions Themselves not Ideal

57

The English language as it is spoken by the politest part of the nation, and as it stands in the writings of our most approved authors, oftentimes offends against every part of grammar. —Robert Lowth, British scholar (1762) A Short Introduction to English Grammar

Positing an ideal communicatively competent NS as the target becomes even more naïve and unrealistic once we consider the fact that interaction among NSs themselves is recurrently incomplete, ambiguous, and—inherently—fraught with potential and patent misinterpretation (cf. e.g. Coupland, Giles & Wiemann 1991; House & Kasper 2000). The advent of language corpora and computational tools has helped applied linguists detect the massive scale of the grammatical ‘untidiness’ of NS usage. Now that increasingly more dictionaries and grammars are corpus-based, the myth of a pedagogically neat NS model has been discredited (Graddol 2006:114f.).

Inadequacy of a Monoglot Model

Monolinguality is probably the single feature guaranteeing “unexceptional eligibility to native speakerdom on its own strength” (Nayar 1994:3). Yet, the goal of FL education is not to produce linguistically deprived monoglots in the for the most part multilingual populace of today’s world. Although outwardly it is English that seems to be the goal of ELT, this actually means teaching the learners to be bilingual! Consequently (not only in the domain of linguistic accuracy, but also in interlanguage pragmatics – ILP; House & Kasper 2000:101ff.) a more adequate and appropriate language model (or reference group) for EFL/ELF students—shifting the focus to the actualities of global uses of English—would be that of successful, fluent (if not necessarily expert) bi-/multilingual L2 user rather than the woefully inadequate exemplar of a monolingual native speaker talking to a compatriot. Since his/her IL knowledge and skills are under construction, “the yardstick by which the unstable bilingual should be measured is the stable bilingual under comparable social, cultural and historical conditions of language use, and with comparable goals for interaction in different discourse domains” (House & Kasper 2000:111); thus, using language-testing terminology, the 100%-criterion-referenced perspective ought to give way to a NNS-norm-referenced one. While reference materials on native-speaker usage may serve an informative purpose for a linguist, they may no longer be so useful to the learner. Increasingly, rather than teachers’ outdated prescriptive norms of correctness, learners’ contexts of English-language usage are going to be the main reference point, and some ‘authentic’ NS materials should be replaced with ones based on corpora of successful NNS interactions. By its very definition, FL learners are bi-/multilingual non-native language users (even if the concepts are just constructs invented by practitioners of SL studies to describe the object of their inquiry, distinguished primarily by their relative proficiency in two or more languages and the length of residence—or lack thereof—in the target community). The fact that FL learners will never become native speakers of the TL “is like saying that ducks fail to become swans: Adults could never become native speakers without being reborn” (Cook 1999a:187). Empirical research suggests that bilingual 58 speakers can be positioned between monolingual speakers of either language diaspora. Weinreich (1953:1) defined interference as “those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language” (emph. added). It is only natural that the only reasonable norm for most L2-ers’ attainment is a successful NNS, who retains a national identity in terms of pronunciation—where the truly native one is virtually impossible to attain anyway—but at the same time displays the special skills required to successfully negotiate understanding with other NNSs. Naturally, the qualifications for teaching bilingualism would rationally mean bilingual teachers.

Rising Importance of New Skills

With the changing realities, locales and purposes of English-language communication, the skills that are going to gain in significance most are probably speaking, receptive skills, and mediation (with translation and interpreting at the forefront), thus calling for a shift of the attitude and a new set of requisite competencies on the part of the teacher. These are also important in view of the evolving forms of discourse and text that the students will have—or want—to navigate, and then prefer a less-than-perfect speaker of the TL who will be able to help them on this plane.

No Motivation to Become Native-like

Many learners themselves do not aspire to approximating to the—already by definition— unattainable NS competence (mostly not considering the effort worthwhile), especially where they have no intention of becoming part of the L2 community (House & Kasper 2000:115). Rather—if at all—they may be seeing English as a tool for building their identity as world citizens.

Immigrant Enclaves

Even if they are eventually immersed in the SL community, learners may still prefer to diverge from target norms, either as a strategy of identity maintenance with their homeland or expat diaspora—language thus attaining the status of the core value of a minority, being passed on together with culture from generation to generation—or to accentuate their remarkable attainment in the TL. Moreover, they may resist convergence with a NS model in the conviction that “[w]hen we try to adopt new speech patterns, we are to some extent giving up markers of our own identity in order to adopt those of another cultural group” (Littlewood 1981:55). In the case of immigrant communities, the particular ‘ethnic’ style developed by the members in interaction among themselves and with NSs may differ significantly from the ‘target norm’, and yet live on over generations who have no intention of blending in (House & Kasper 2000). Such a hypocorrect style often carries covert prestige.

Identity Issues

59

The primary motivation for learning English in the 21st century is not integrative (connected with a desire to become a member of the TL group, with the language for identification), but instrumental (related to functional, utilitarian goals for learning the language as a means to an end, e.g. to enhance educational or employment prospects, move up the social ladder, or for travel; Gardner & Lambert 1972). The majority of the world’s learners are hardly hooked on the ‘cultural baggage’ of the native community any longer. They need not wish to learn British/American culture, while they may be more interested in using English to speak about their own customs and traditions. Thus, emulation is replaced by comparison of one’s own beliefs, meanings and behaviours with those of another culture, which can support rather than jeopardize one’s cultural identity.

Expectations of Prospective NS Interlocutors

The way people sound is closely related to others’ perception about their sociocultural identity (Morgan 1997). It may be felt that NSs themselves would expect some measure of divergence on the part of ‘aliens’, rather than total convergence, which might be treated as intrusive (ibid.). Also in pragmatics Kasper and Zhang (1995) discover that complete adherence to target-culture norms for the L2 Chinese learner is undesirable, not only unrealistic. Similarly, in an account of the custom of toasting in Georgia, Kotthoff (1996) describes how a foreigner will be expected not to attempt to stick to the convention of elaborate, ornate toasts but to contribute one of an outsider.

The Effectiveness of English-only Immersion vs. Bilingual Programs

Other things being equal, immersion programs in SL settings proved to perform poorly in comparison with bilingual ones (albeit even the latter serve to wean learners off their L1 as rapidly as possible). After California, Arizona, and Massachusetts did away with bilingual education several years ago, a recent Boston Globe survey of state test results revealed that the new program has largely failed its goal to quickly immerse students in English so as to make them ready to join regular classes after a year (Llana & Paulson 2006).

Maturation and Universal Grammar

If the Critical Period Hypothesis (or Seliger’s (1978) milder ‘differential fossilisation hypothesis’) is acknowledged, where early and prolonged exposure to the TL is a prerequisite for acquiring native(-like) linguistic competence, at least in the case of post- pubescent learners who lack full access to UG proposing a NS norm misses the point.

A Methodological Edge

NNS teachers usually strive to compensate for their perceived ‘handicap’ and inferiority complex with extensive methodological training and more effective instructional strategies, something frequently lacked by self-appointed expat or immigrant teachers; this may also be why they believe teaching qualifications should be the most important 60 factor in the employment of EFL teachers (Ezberci & Snyder 2006). NNESTs are additionally favoured for their ability to impart learning strategies (Medgyes 1992).

NSs’ Ignorance of the Learners’ L1

At the beginnings of the past century, Harold Palmer (1917) observed: “The first and foremost qualification of the ideal teacher is a thorough knowledge of both the foreign language and the student’s native tongue.” Without being aware of the areas of negative transfer, teachers may not be able to perceive the cause of nor understand learners’ erroneous production. As Lado (1957) rightly observed, “[t]he teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what the real problems are and can provide for teaching them.” Noticing the most 20 problematic contrasts between the L1 and the L2 and helping learners overcome the arising difficulties facilitates and accelerates the learning process, making teaching in monolingual classes in particular highly efficient (Atkinson 1993:8). Native speakers’ grammars are “-etic or ‘externally grounded’ whereas they ought to be -emic or ‘congruent with the point of view of the individual being investigated’” (James 1994:208), and learners need to be taught grammar from their own perspective. Having a knowledge of—and sensitivity to—the ways in which the learners’ L1 and L2 differ “is beneficial both as an aid to localising areas of potential difficulty for the learner where interference may occur and as a vehicle for explanation, in giving learners feedback on their own speaking and writing” (Leech 1994:21). The teacher will then be able to make informed choices concerning selection and emphasis, knowing which aspects of the TL to focus on and which can safely be left aside.

Metalingual Competence

the vast majority of people … know deplorably little about either language in general, or languages in particular (Cravens 1996:465)

More important still, many NSs will be unaware of how the mechanisms of their own language function without analysing its formal characteristics beforehand – which few do. As Chomsky (1966) observed, “[a] person is not generally aware of the rules that govern sentence-interpretation in the language that he knows.”21 The knowledge that NSs possess is mostly implicit only. However, they will not be in a position to explain the workings of their language and put the knowledge across unless it becomes explicit. It is also necessary for the teacher to be familiar with the concepts that describe language; thus, not only to have the ‘gut reaction’ that something is wrong, but to know precisely what is going awry, how to correct it, and to be able to explain it so that the student

20 In this context by the L1 I will understand, in line with Atkinson (1993:3), the common language shared by the students, though not necessarily the mother tongue of each of them (as e.g. it is in the case of Catalan or Basque in Madrid). 21 Although one need not agree with the latter part of the quote: “nor, in fact, is there any reason to suppose that the rules can be brought to consciousness.” 61 understands. For this reason NNSs tend to have a better idea than many natives how the language works, and a sophisticated knowledge of its structure, which the latter can only develop with special training or years of classroom experience (Atkinson 1993:8). NNSs are hence typically better at explaining points of grammar.

Grammar-consciousness

A (meta)linguistically trained NNS will also be head and shoulders above his/her NS colleagues in at least some areas of grammar (and not necessarily exclusively such specialized skills as performance on semantic tests, garden-path sentence and ambiguity recognition tasks). Though generally having a better command of the language, NESTs agree with their own limitations in grammar (Ezberci & Snyder 2006).

The Issue of Qualifications

Barring—not quite rare—cases such as the authentic example from my own backyard when a native speaker teacher turned out to be one of seven children, with just an incomplete primary education, having spent more time grazing sheep in Wales than sitting at the school desk, even NS teachers in ESOL courses on the Isles come in for criticism in terms of the quality level; a 2006 NIACE “More Than A Language…” report indicated that within ESOL provision—with the exception of isolated instances of good practice—the quality picture on a national scale is bleak and “patchy at best” (Marsh 2006). On the continent, smaller language schools in particular will take on a NS straight away, CELTA or not. A NNS teacher will at least have mandatorily passed through some form of formalized linguistic and methodological education (although, of course, next to highly qualified NNESTs with flawless English there will always be ones who make basic mistakes). Thus, in the spirit and letter of the TESOL (2006) Position Statement Against Discrimination of Nonnative Speakers of English in the Field of TESOL, school administrators should use proficiency and qualifications as their benchmark, evaluating all instructors according to the same set of criteria of formal education, linguistic expertise (not merely proficiency but also explicit knowledge), teaching experience and professional preparation, seeking competent bilingual indigenous teachers, applying a segmentary approach rather than judgments based purely on the place of birth which encourage dilettantes from the Anglosphere. Still, police reports highlight more and more cases of native speaker teachers, happily hired by language schools, who feature on criminal records in their own countries or international arrest warrants (Jelec 2006).

Wide Availability of Authentic NS and EIL Data

True, NNS teachers will probably not produce spontaneous exemplar stretches of discourse as effortlessly as a NS, yet today they have at their disposal authentic examples from freely available language corpora, which they can fittingly modify to suit the classroom context and the proficiency level of their learners, thus making more informed choices regarding the relevance, practicality and appropriacy of the contextualized language data that they will present to their students. A native speaker, on the other hand, may well fall into the trap of his/her superficial intuitions and not bother to verify these 62 against wider usage – after all, the English language—or any language for that matter—is so much greater and more complex than the competence of any one speaker, that E- language becomes a much more valid, comprehensive and objective source of reference than I-language. Other online resources will help teachers overcome gaps not only in linguistic, but also cultural knowledge of the target community, where such knowledge is expected or welcome in the course syllabus. Additionally, wisely selected audio and video materials can offer the students a good deal more exposure to native-speaker English than a NS teacher (Atkinson 1993:6).

Familiarity with Educational Realities

Indigenous EFL teachers—with first-hand experience themselves—are conscious of the realities of the educational system, the exams their students will have to take, the assessment criteria, and the environment and situations in which the foreign language will be used – something that a newcomer has yet to learn. Teachers should make informed choices concerning the methods and varieties which will be most appropriate for learners’ needs and expectations, and these vary from context to context.

Familiarity with Learners’ Expectations

Knowledge of the students’ environment and culture makes indigenous, NNSs aware of what types of activities their learners are familiar with, and what approaches they might find odd or embarrassing (e.g. pair or group work; Atkinson 1993:9f.). This is particularly vital in cultures where the norms of politeness and personal boundaries are treated very seriously.

Upbringing Obligations

In many monolingual situations, e.g. in the primary or lower secondary, the teacher’s role may in practice not be exclusively limited to teaching the language, but also involve educating the students in the more general sense of the word. In such cases, to help young people develop a secure identity rooted in their own culture while at the same time nurturing respect for and interest in other customs and languages, the teachers should best belong to the same culture as their students (Atkinson 1993:10). Otherwise, in some circumstances using e.g. the Direct Method by a NS may evoke ‘cultural disalienation’ among the learners (Phillipson 1992:193).

Familiarity with Parents’ Expectations

NNESTs will also be familiar with the expectations of the parents of young and teenage learners, which vary from country to country and from milieu to milieu. As the keepers frequently have influence and decision-making powers (in both the state and private education sector), this is no trivial matter.

Safe Environment

63

NS teachers may be intimidating for the learners, as paragons of linguistic competence that will—in the vast majority of cases—be unattainable for them (Kramsch 1998:9). At the same time, the learners may resent speaking out, anxious that all their errors will be spotted and bear on the final, formative assessment. When confronted with a limitation in the target language, they may thus prefer to employ an avoidance strategy rather than ‘lose face’ by e.g. requesting clarification. This is why they may prefer a more familiar though fallible non-Anglo teacher (Cook 2002:338), in whose presence they will feel more comfortable (also because of the shared background and cultural awareness, thus reducing intercultural failure anxiety), hence more readily engaging in negotiation of meaning and hypothesis testing in this secure environment. The latter teacher can thus establish better rapport and bond with his/her students. Additionally, s/he proves that it is possible to attain a near-native command of the TL without the benefit of having been born abroad, thus constituting a preferred, powerful and achievable role model.

Empathy Painting is easy when you don't know how, but very difficult when you do. —Edgar Degas (1834-1917)

NSs, having grown up to speak the language naturally, largely effortlessly and un- /subconsciously through exposure, cannot objectively judge and appreciate its difficulties and intricacies. Learning a foreign language helps the teacher develop empathy for what his/her students will be going through, to identify with their cross-cultural and learning experiences. Having shared experience of grappling with the language at hand, NNESTs are attributed with a deeper understanding of the difficulties their students will face before mastering the same intricacies of the languages that they themselves had to overcome.

Frustration

Language learning in itself is a thorny and frequently frustrating path for many learners, particularly at the lower levels of advancement. A pure Direct Method can then be especially stressful and frustrating (Atkinson 1993:13). While for some learners the English class can be “an exciting, different world, where everything happens in a different language,” for other—especially young—learners, whose attentional resources are relatively undeveloped, classes entirely in the FL can be daunting and very disorientating. A chance to “let off steam” in their L1 is vindicated (op. cit.:16f.), since most students will find it much easier to accept that there is time and place for the L1 in the classroom rather than that there is none (op. cit.:18).

Other Affective Factors

When the language(s)—or even, where possible and relevant, dialects—spoken by or known to the students become resource for relevant and timely comparisons and contrasts with the target, initial psychological inhibition and anxiety level (the affective filter; Dulay & Burt 1977; Krashen 1982) become appreciably lowered (Pratt-Johnson 2006), 64 while learners’ self-esteem and motivation improve. Penalizing the learner for using his/her L1 is may be sensed as downgrading its status, making it ‘inferior’, which is an insensitive and inconsiderate approach. Judicious use of their L1 can create an atmosphere of friendship and confidence in the classroom (Balosa 2006). As the learners do not perceive their vernacular as downgraded, but of equal status, in many cases this additionally helps ignite interest in this—hitherto taken for granted—language, thus adding the return benefit of fostering transfer of knowledge in language awareness. Providing the learners with instruction in their L1 while at the same time making pertinent and timely comparisons and connections offers them added guidance and support, with which they can “cling to what is familiar to them while being encouraged to reach for what is new” (Pratt-Johnson 2006:15).

Explaining Errors

When correcting learners’ errors and mistakes, doing this in their mother tongue may be more effectual and intelligible. Moreover, reference to the L1 can additionally help them understand the word or structure that is causing confusion (Atkinson 1993:33).

L1 Provides the Learners with an Opportunity to Distinguish Themselves

For many learners, in particular adolescents and adults, the occasional L1 loophole opens the possibility “to show that they are intelligent, sophisticated people” (Atkinson 1993:14), something that could not be possible with their currently limited TL resources which cripple authentic TL communication.

Effectiveness

How many times have you had a foreign word or expression explained in the target language in a roundabout way, which contributed little to the clarity of the definition? If the German teacher picks up a pen and says “Das ist ein Füller,” how are we to know whether s/he means precisely a ‘fountain pen’, ‘any pen’, or ‘any utensil you use for writing’? Or how would you explain ‘gooseberry’, ‘turnip’, ‘robin’, or ‘cider’ to a beginner learner without having it or its visual representation at hand and lacking artistic skills? Monolingual strategies (presenting a definition, paraphrase, or contextual clues and further examples), gesture and mime may perhaps help in a limited range of cases, but it is doubtful whether the students will profit much if the whole class is spent on the teacher playing ‘crocodile’. Although sometimes a direct image (even if only vaguely resembling the signified) can be a much more powerful stimulus than translation, it is not foolproof either. Providing a definition and explaining abstract or technical concepts such as quantum, molecule, protein, variant, integral, differential, unity, calculation, expression, condition, theorem/proposition, network, economy, oblivion, everything, community, society, or the relative pronoun ‘which’ will be not only time-consuming, but also unreliable, especially as even in your own language it is often very difficult to elaborate a satisfactory definition. Yet, when presenting new language, making its meaning clear and unambiguous to the students (which is frequently attempted through 65 some form of indirect explanation) is essential.22 Rather than taking the learner on a roundabout journey which—like the ramshackle cab driven by a shady local in a Mexican pueblo—does not warrant reaching the destination, a straightforward translation is not only the simplest and most cost-effective, but also a frustration-saving means of conveying meaning, overcoming the limitations of English-only instruction.23 The value of translation as a semanticising device (i.e., “convey[ing] the meaning of a given unit;” Titone 1968) was defended by Henry Sweet, Harold Palmer, and proponents of the Comprehension Approach, all of whom emphasized the absolute need for the learner to comprehend the learning material before committing it to memory (Dakowska 2005:30f.). In the words of Dakowska (op. cit.:31), through semanticising “the learner’s precise understanding of the material in the target language is given priority over the fact that for a minute or two the learner is deprived of the target language input and/or practice.” While the aim of instruction should be to assist learners in developing the ability to understand and learn English through English, where more direct techniques are ineffective translation should be endorsed even at the highest levels – especially as most learners will spontaneously translate things for themselves, and many will subsequently learn them from bilingual word lists. Provision of a translation equivalent thus leads to instant understanding, i.e. establishment of a link between the TL form and its meaning, whereupon the learner may proceed to the more demanding stages of the task (Dakowska 2005:31).

Common Cultural Ground

In describing more complex phenomena, cultural concepts, and idioms, a non-native teacher will be able to refer to familiar notions in the learners’ own culture, facilitating relevant comparisons/contrasts and thus elucidating the matter more successfully.

Simpler = Easier

The finest words in the world are only vain sounds if you cannot comprehend them.

22 I would venture to disagree here with Wilkins’ (1974) accusation that “[t]ranslation tends to conceal polysemy, by encouraging reliance on one-for-one equivalences between languages. The short-term advantages of translation have to be weighed against some longer-term problems that dependence on translation may cause.” I would not consider the fact that translation ‘buries’ polysemy—if it does so in the first place—a sin as, primo, in order to understand a passage or perform a task typically only one meaning—the relevant meaning—of a given item is necessary; secundo, both a monolingual (contextual, paraphrase, definition) and a direct method of its explanation (mime, gesture, picture, drawing, realia) would indicate a single meaning only; and, tertio, when children acquire their L1, who provides them with all the 13 or so definitions of, say, the Polish word figura at once? 23 For the same reason, while setting up a context for a practice task, it should be understood by the class (otherwise practice will not be efficient, the students may become confused or jaded, and discipline problems may be faced with children), lead-ins should be brief: there is little sense in expending time on building up a situation exclusively in English, only to find that you lack it to explain and practise the language properly (Atkinson 1993:26f.). Thus, for complicated communication activities Atkinson (ibid.) recommends providing and clarifying instructions in the L1, without which some sound activities would be very difficult to set up at lower levels (alternatively, he suggests giving the instruction in English and having a good student summarize it). He additionally contends that by presenting the instruction in TL, many words that will be needed for the task will already be provided, which might make the activity less challenging, while the mother-tongue version pushes the learners to find the words (op. cit.:29f.). This is a somewhat contentious point; after all, the primary goal of the task would probably be a structure or form, and waiting until the learners ask about the lexis necessary to carry it out appears difficult to justify. 66

—Anatole France (1844-1924), French novelist, essayist, winner of the 1921 Nobel Prize in Literature

While a NNEST may not employ such a wealth of idiomatic lexis as a ‘true’ Briton, this may actually help the learners—especially at the lower stages of learning—understand more than if the discourse were interspersed with unknown vocabulary, however erudite. After all, who needs to understand words such as ‘vicariously’, ‘elope’, or ‘cassock’ (Nerrière 2005)?

Systematicity vs. Randomness

The larger the mass of collected things, the less will be their usefulness. Therefore, one should not only strive to assemble new goods from everywhere, but one must endeavor to put in the right order those that one already possesses. —Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716)

Given limited contact with the TL in the conventional FL classroom, what input there is ought to be made systematic to at least some degree, providing the learners with a sense of control over the material, enabling them to link it with what they already know, rather than merely coming as the teacher’s haphazard stream of consciousness. Naturally, it is the NNS who will be in a better position to offer such an environment (Łukasiewicz 2006:49).

Lack of Mutual Comprehension

Moreover, when the learners do not understand something, they may be unable to explain in the TL what it is that they do not comprehend, to spell out their difficulties, or to request assistance. It can be terribly exasperating for learners not being able to communicate what they are trying to get across, especially in ‘communicative’ tasks. There is therefore little justification for not allowing them to express themselves in the L1 in order to help them subsequently mold the same idea in the TL (Atkinson 1993:16); but this, of course, will be beyond the capacities of a monolingual NS.

Assessing Comprehension and Elicitation

And—from the reverse perspective—one should consider the most efficient and effective methods of assessing comprehension, as well as of eliciting FL words. On occasions, the simplest and most obvious way is asking the learners to think of a translation.

Benefits of Translation

One also needs to acknowledge the benefits of translation as a potent consciousness- raising tool. With the advent of Communicative Language Teaching this activity, with its long history, fell out of favour into neglect and was given a bad press (Atkinson 1993:54; Dakowska 2005:29f.; Stoichkov 2006). Yet, if translation activities (which should chiefly 67 be limited to rendering into the TL; cf. Dakowska 2005:30) are designed wisely, we can recognize numerous benefits of such valuable activities (for an extensive inventory see Paradowski 2007:102–5). Enhanced employment of translation in the syllabus implies, of course, that multilingualism be not merely paid lip service by the teachers, but that they themselves follow the directive. This, again, reinforces the requirement that the instructor be competent both in the TL and the NL of the learner, and in the respective ‘cultural filters’.24

Demand for NSs Outpacing Supply

With the market for ELT services continually and briskly expanding, and with Anglophone countries unable to keep pace releasing language teachers, it is becoming a necessity for many countries to seek regional and alternative sources of supply – which will not be difficult, considering the increasingly more widespread availability of qualified, proficient multilingual educators. Already in the 1990s China invited teacher- trainers from Belgium, valued for their know-how in bilingual education (Graddol 2006:115), while the designation ‘NS teacher’ is slowly being relaxed to embrace instructors from the ‘outer circle’.

Maximum Exposure?

And, last but not least, one of the arguments raised against the use of the L1 in the classroom is that—given limited contact time with the TL that students receive in EFL settings—the learners ought to obtain as much exposure to and training in the language as possible, and the language of instruction can serve here as bonus input. Yet, this ‘housekeeping’ idiom of organisation and instruction—as well as much of the remaining teacher talk and classroom communication—is vastly repetitive (not least because of every teacher’s idiolect), hence after some time failing to contribute to enhanced linguistic proficiency, and essentially worthless outside the school context (how often and where else will your learners need to know how to say “open your books on page …” or “get into pairs”?). As Cook (1999b) observes, “once one goes beyond greetings and pleasantries, the language of the classroom is … specialised language used for teaching where the vocabulary and the language functions are unlikely to be duplicated in the world outside,” thus not as useful as some would have it.

Recapitulation

Even today, in the TESOL industry of the 21st century, highly experienced and qualified teachers of ESL find their credentials and expert status as practitioners questioned on the grounds of their nonnativeness, becoming condemned to more and less subtle ostracism (Derbel 2005). In a taxonomy which plays down such inextricable facets of professionalism as formal education, linguistic proficiency and expertise, vocational training, and teaching experience they find themselves discriminated against, often

24 Of course, encouraging translation from the very early stages will make it difficult for the advanced learner to break the habit later on. 68 implicitly, but every so often explicitly as well, in hiring practices and/or in receiving working assignments. The still widespread NS-bias (among other issues) means that English language educators who step from Kachru’s (1985) outer or expanding circle into the inner one are never readily accepted as full-fledged professionals (Braine 1999), and the current stance safeguards employment opportunities of NESTs, giving them precedence in the job market (whether overtly or covertly, e.g. by specifying holders of British passports; Jenkins 2004). Although of late a changeover has been observed from the prevalent N/NEST dichotomy towards a focus on linguistic and pedagogical expertise, with the issue of (non-)nativeness becoming downplayed (Bailey 2002; Ezberci & Snyder 2006), the arguments catalogued above go counter to the enshrined stance exorcising the use of the L1 in the classroom. In Poland, the trend over the last decade has been a division of labor: a local teacher would take care of grammar, whereas a foreigner would be hired to supplement the regular classes with pronunciation, integrated skills, listening comprehension, composition and other ‘communicative skills’. All in all, the confidence of local, NNS teachers should be boosted by giving them a sense of legitimacy, rather than their qualifications challenged for not drawing level with ‘the standard’. Moreover, acknowledging that language transfer—both positive (facilitative) and negative (debilitative, interference)—is inescapable (even where there is no need for it to compensate for the unavailability of UG, e.g. in early SLA), we should capitalize on it and reforge it to our advantage. Atkinson (1993:105) closes his book with the following recommendation for NS teachers: “Learn the students’ language: go to classes, set up a conversation exchange, study on your own, etc. Or, at the very least, learn about the language and the students’ likely linguistic problems.”

References

Algeo, John (Ed.). (1991). Fifty Years among the New Words: A dictionary of neologisms. 1941-1991. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Al-Hamly, Mashael A., Ali Shehadeh & Christine Coombe. (2006). Students’ achievement/learning outcomes and nonnative teachers. Paper delivered at the 40. Annual TESOL Convention. Tampa, FL.

Andrews, Jane & Richard Fay. (2000). Interculturality and English language paired oral exams: communication norms and their assessment. In Beaumont, Mike & Teresa O’Brien (Eds) Collaborative Research in Second Language Education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham, 165-80.

Atkinson, David. (1993). Teaching Monolingual Classes. Harlow: Longman.

Bailey, Kathleen M. (2002). Declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and the varieties of English we teach. TESOL NNEST Newsletter 4/2: 1, 3-5. 69

Borodina, Arina & Maria Luisa Tirmaste. (2005). Вещай, страна огромная. Кто и для чего создает новое телевидение Кремля. Коммерсантъ. Издательский Дом.

Braine, George (Ed.). (1999). Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bryson, Bill. (1984). The Penguin Dictionary of Troublesome Words. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Bryson, Bill. (1989). The Lost Continent: Travels in Small Town America. New York: Harper & Row.

Burchfield, Robert. (1985). The English Language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bygate, Martin, Alan Tonkyn & Eddie Williams (Eds). (1994). Grammar and the Language Teacher. New York: Prentice Hall.

Byram, Michael. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Canagarajah, A. Suresh. (2005). Race and nonnativeness. TESOL NNEST Newsletter 7/2, retrieved from http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/sec_issue.asp?nid=2982&iid=4633&sid=1

Cardinaletti, Anna. (2005). L1 attrition in translations into Italian. paper delivered at the 2nd International Conference on First Language Attrition, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Chacón, Carmen Teresa & Linda C. Girardot. (2006). NNES teachers’ and prospective teachers’ perceptions of English as an international language: An exploration in an EFL context. TESOL NNEST Newsletter 8/1. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/sec_issue.asp?nid=2982&iid=6165&sid=1

Chomsky, Noam. (1966). Cartesian linguistics: a chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.

Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam. (1966). Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton. 70

Cook, Guy. (2003). Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cook, Vivian J. (1999a). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33/2: 185-209.

Cook, Vivian J. (1999b). Creating Second Language Users. Jurnal Kurikulum JILID1 BIL 2. Kuala Lumpur: Curriculum Development Centre. Retrieved from http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/Writings/Papers/CreatingL2Users.htm

Cook, Vivian J. (Ed.). (2002). Portraits of the L2 User. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cook, Vivian J. (2007). The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multi-competence among second language users? In Jim Cummins & Chris Davison (Eds) International Handbook of English Language Teaching, Vol. II: Language, Learning and Identity in ELT: Reconceptualizing the Field [Springer International Handbooks of Education, Vol. 15] Norwell, MA: Springer, 237-48.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Also available for download from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf

Coupland, Nikolas, John M. Wiemann & Howard Giles. (1991). Talk as “problem” and communication as “miscommunication”: An integrative analysis. In Coupland, Nikolas, Howard Giles & John M. Wiemann (Eds) “Miscommunication” and Problematic Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1-17.

Cravens, Thomas D. (1996). Linguistics in the Curriculum. Italica 73/4 [Linguistics and Pedagogy]: 465-72.

Crawford, James W. (1997). Issues in U.S. language policy. English Plus. Retrieved from http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/engplus.htm

Crystal, David. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2nd ed. 2003]

Crystal, David. (1997). English as a Global Language [2nd Ed. 2003] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, David. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University 71

Press.

Crystal, David. (2002). The English Language: A guided tour of the language [2nd ed.] London: Penguin.

Crystal. David. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language [2nd ed.] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cuza, Alejandro. (2001). La atrición de la competencia morfosintáctica del español en situación de contacto con el inglés. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Ottawa.

Cuza, Alejandro & Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux. (2006). I came long time ago: language attrition in long-time bilinguals. Bilingual/Bicultural Family Magazine, retrieved from http://www.biculturalfamily.org/apr06/icamelongtimeago.html

Dakowska, Maria. (2005). Teaching English as a Foreign Language. A guide for professionals. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. de Lotbinière, Max. (2001). Global English: The European lessons. The Guardian.

Derbel, Faiza. (2005). Fully qualified, but still marginalized. Essential Teacher Compleat Links 2.2. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/sec_document.asp?CID=916&DID=3973

Dozon, Auguste. (1889). Encore la question de la langue en Grèce. À propos du livre de M. J. Psichari, To toxivdi mou, «mon voyage», Athènes, 1888. Revue des Études Grecques II: 66-93.

Dulay, Heidi C. & Marina . Burt. (1977). Remarks on creativity in language acquisition. In Burt, Marina, Heidi Dulay & Mary Finocchiaro (Eds) Viewpoints on English as Second Language. New York: Regents, 95-126.

Ezberci, Ebru & Bill Snyder. (2006). Interrogating the NEST/NNEST dichotomy. Paper delivered at the 40. Annual TESOL Convention, Tampa, FL.

Ferguson, Charles A. (1959). Diglossia. Word 15: 325-40. [Reprinted in Giglioli, Pier Paolo (Ed.) (1972) Language and Social Context. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 232-51]

Ferguson, Angela. (2005). Student beliefs about their foreign language instructors: A look at the native speaker/non-native speaker issue. PhD dissertation, University of Arizona. 72

Francis, David J. (2006). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners. Presentation at LEP Partnership Meeting, Washington, DC. Available for download from http://www.centeroninstruction.org

Gardner, Robert C. & Wallace E. Lambert. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second- Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gill, Chris. (2004). China offers an English future for some. Guardian Weekly.

Graddol, David. (2006). English Next. Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a Foreign Language’. Plymouth: British Council.

Gürel, Ayşe. (2004). Selectivity in L2-induced L1 attrition. Journal of Neurolinguistics 17: 3-30.

Hawkins, Roger. (2001). A framework for studying second language syntax. In id. (Ed.) Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1-33.

Henry, Alison. (1995). Belfast English and : Dialect variation and parameter setting. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hoffman, Charlotte. (2000). The spread of English and the growth of multilingualism with English in Europe. In Cenoz, Jasone & Ulrike Jessner (Eds) English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1-21.

House, Juliane. (2000). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In Knapp, Karlfried & Christiane Meierkord (Eds) Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 245-68.

House, Juliane. (2006). The role of English as a lingua franca in multilingual and cross- cultural communication. plenary paper delivered at the conference on Multilingualism & Applied Comparative Linguistics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

House, Juliane & Gabriele Kasper. (2000). How to remain a non-native speaker. In Riemer, Claudia (Ed.) Kognitive Aspekte des Lehrens und Lernens von Fremdsprachen [Cognitive Aspects of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning]. Festschrift für Willis J. Edmondson zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, 101-18.

73

Hymes, Dell H. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, John B. & Janet Holmes (Eds) Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 269-93.

Hymes, Dell H. (1979). On communicative competence. In Brumfit, Christopher J. & Keith Johnson (Eds) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press, 5-27.

James, Carl. (1994). Explaining grammar to its learners. In Bygate et al. (Eds): 203-14.

Jelec, Marcin. (2006). Przestępcy uczą języków. Echo Miasta, p. 4.

Jenkins, Jennifer. (2000). The Phonology of English as an International Language: New Models, New Norms, New Goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, Jennifer. (2002). A sociolinguistically based, empirically researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics 23/1:83-103.

Jenkins, Jennifer. (2004). Beware the natives and their norms. Guardian Weekly.

Jenkins, Jennifer. (2004). Research in teaching pronunciation and intonation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 109-25.

Jenkins, Jennifer & Barbara Seidlhofer. (2001). The Guardian.

Kachru, Braj B. (1966). : A study in contextualization. In Bazell, Charles Ernest, John Cunnison Catford, Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday & Robert Henry Robins (Eds) In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans, Green and Co, 255-87.

Kachru, Braj B. (1985). Standards, codification, and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, Randolph & Henry G. Widdowson (Eds) English in the World: Teaching and learning the language and literatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11-30.

Kachru, Braj B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kachru, Braj B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In id. (Ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 355-66. 74

Kachru, Braj B. (2004). Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Kasper, Gabriele. (1997). “A” stands for acquisition: a response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal 81/3: 307-12.

Kasper, Gabriele & Eric Kellerman (Eds). (1997). Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Harlow: Longman.

Kasper, Gabriele & Yanyin Zhang. (1995). It’s good to be a bit Chinese. In Kasper, Gabriele (Ed.) Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language [Technical Report #5] Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai`i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Keddle, Julia Starr. (2004). The CEF and the secondary school syllabus. In Morrow, Keith (Ed.), 43-54.

Kessler, Michael. (2005). Spain opts to instruct in English. Guardian Weekly.

Kinnock, Neil. (2006). Foreword. In Graddol, David English Next. Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a Foreign Language’. Plymouth: British Council, 3-5. Kohlberg, Lawrence, Charles Levine & Alexandra Hewer. (1983). Moral Stages: A Current Formulation and Response to Critics. Basel: Karger.

Kotthoff, Helga. (1996). Georgian toasts and the limits of cross-cultural accommodation: Perspectives on the interrelation of speech genres and culture. In Ambos, Erwin & Irene Werner (Eds) Interkulturelle Dimensionen der Fremdsprachenkompetenz. Bochum: AKS-Verlag.

Kramsch, Claire. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, Claire. (1998). The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In Byram, Michael & Michael Fleming (Eds) Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 16-31.

Krashen, Stephen D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. [2nd Ed. published (1987) by Prentice Hall International]

75

Lado, Robert. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Leech, Geoffrey N. (1994). Students’ grammar – teachers’ grammar – learners’ grammar. In Bygate et al. (Eds): 17-30.

Liptrot, Kate. (2006). Korea must abandon native speaker model. Korea Times.

Littlewood, Wiliam. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Llana, Sara Miller & Amanda Paulson. (2006). Bilingualism issue rises again. Immigration legislation puts fresh attention on teaching methods. The Christian Science Monitor.

Lochtman, Katja. (2006). Belgian business students’ attitudes towards English and other foreign languages: What do they tell us about motivation in foreign language acquisition in a multilingual environment? Poster presented at the conference on Multilingualism & Applied Comparative Linguistics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Lubliner, Coby. (2002). Reflections on Diglossia. Retrieved from http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~coby/essays/refdigl.htm

Łukasiewicz, Maria. (2006). Implementing the interface model in adult foreign language education. Linguistic and psychological considerations. Unpublished MA dissertation, Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.

Macaulay, Ronald K. S. (1988). RP RIP. Applied Linguistics 9/2: 115-124. [Reprinted in id. (1997) Standards and Variation in Urban Speech: Examples from Lowland Scots [Varieties of English Around the World G20] Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 35-44]

Madeleine, Bonnie Lee La. (2007). Lost in translation. Nature Jobs. Retrieved from http://news.nature.com//news/2007/070122/nj7126-454a.html

Martin, James J. (1988). An American Adventure in Bookburning in the Style of 1918. Colorado Springs, CO: Ralph Myles.

Matsuda, Aya. (2003). Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an international language. TESOL Quarterly 37: 719-29.

Medgyes, Peter. (1992). Native or non-native: Who’s worth more? ELT Journal46/4: 76

340-9.

Meierkord, Christiane & Karlfried Knapp. (2002). Approaching Lingua Franca Communication. In Knapp, Karlfried & Christiane Meierkord (Eds) Lingua Franca Communication. Frankfurt: Lang, 9-28.

Melchers, Gunnel & Philip Shaw. (2003). World Englishes: An introduction. London: Arnold.

Morgan, Brian. (1997). Identity and intonation: Linking dynamic processes in an ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 31:431-50.

Morrison, Richard. (2002). The Englishing of Earth. The Times.

Morrow, Keith (Ed.). (2004). Insights from the Common European Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mufwene, Salikoko S. (2001). The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mufwene, Salikoko S. (2007). Population contacts, competition and selection, and language evolution. Journal of Language Contact 1: Evolution of languages, contact and discourse. Muramatsu, Yumika & Bryan Meadows. (2006). Perceptions of nonnative language instructors. paper presented at the 40. Annual TESOL Convention, Tampa, FL, March 16.

Nayar, P. B. (1989). English across cultures: native English speaker in the Third World. IDEAL 4: 25-35.

Nayar, P. B. (1994). Whose English is it? TESL-EJ 1/1: 1-7.

Nerrière, Jean-Paul. (2005). Communication internationale. La solution. paper delivered at conférence-débat ‘Le , dialecte interplanétaire du 3ème millénaire ?’ à l’occasion de l’Assemblée Générale du GRECO.

Paikeday, Thomas M. (1985). The Native Speaker is Dead! Toronto: Paikeday Publishing.

Palmer, Harold Edward. (1917). The Scientific Study and Teaching of Languages. A review of the factors and problems connected with the learning and teaching of 77

modern languages with an analysis of the various methods which may be adopted in order to attain satisfactory results. London: Harrap.

Paradowski, Michał B. (2007). Exploring the L1/L2 Interface. A Study of Polish Advanced EFL Learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw.

Pennycook, Alastair. (1998). English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London: Routledge.

Phillipson, Robert. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PhysOrg. (2005). Prof: English sounds like one language, but it’s really not. Retrieved from Purdue University at http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=5119

Pinker, Steven. (2000). The Language Instinct. How the mind creates language. New York: HarperCollins.

Platt, John & Heidi Weber. (1984). Speech convergence miscarries: an investigation into inappropriate Accommodation Strategies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46: 131-46.

Porte, Graeme. (2003). English from a distance: Code-mixing and blending in the L1 output of long-term resident overseas EFL teachers. In Vivian J. Cook (Ed.) Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 103-19.

Power, Carla. (2005). Not the Queen’s English. Newsweek International. Retrieved from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7038031/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/

Pratt-Johnson, Yvonne. (2006). Raising learners’ language awareness via L1-L2 comparisons: L2 grammar instruction in L1. paper delivered at the conference on Multilingualism & Applied Comparative Linguistics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Prescher, Petra. (2006). Immigration: Does living in a second language lead to first language attrition? Paper delivered at the First Conference on Language Contact in Times of Globalization. University of Groningen.

Psichari, Jean. (1886). Ιστορικά και Γλωσσολογικά [Historical and Linguistic Questions]. In id. (1975 [1901]) Ρόδα και Μήλα [Roses and Apples] Athens: Παπαδόπουλος, 86- 162.

78

Psichari, Jean. (1888). Το Ταξίδι μου [Mon Voyage]. Ed. by Angelou, A. [1st ed.] (1987) Athens: Ερμής.

Salman, Saba. (2006). Lost in translation. The Guardian.

Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte. (1974). Soziolinguistik. Stuttghart: Kohlhammer.

Schumann, John H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In Rosario C. Gingras (Ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 27-50.

Seidlhofer, Barbara. (2001). Closing a Conceptual Gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11/2: 133-58.

Seidlhofer, Barbara. (2004). Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 209-39.

Seliger, Herbert W. (1978). Implications of a multiple critical periods hypothesis for second language learning. In Ritchie, William C. (Ed.) Second Language Acquisition Research: Issues and Implications. New York: Academic Press, 11-20.

Seliger, Herbert W. (1996). Primary language attrition in the context of bilingualism. In Ritchie, William C. & Tej K. Bathia (Eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 605-25. Siegal, Meryl. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics 17: 356-382.

Sifakis, Nicos C. (2004). Teaching EIL—teaching international or intercultural English? What teachers should know. System 32: 237-50.

Sifakis, Nicos C. & Areti-Maria Sougari. (2005, Sep). TESOL Quarterly 39/3: 467-88.

Sriskandarajah, Dhananjayan & Catherine Drew. (2006). Brits Abroad: Mapping the Scale and Nature of British Emigration. London: Institute of Public Policy Research.

Stoichkov, Rossen. (2006). Rediscovering translation in the foreign language classroom. paper delivered at the conference on Multilingualism & Applied Comparative Linguistics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Titone, Renzo. (1968). Teaching Foreign Languages. A historical sketch. Washington: 79

Georgetown University Press.

Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria, Antonella Sorace, Caroline Heycock, Francesca Filiaci & Maria Bouba. (2002). Subjects in L1 attrition: evidence from Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. BUCLD 27: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference in Language Development, Vol. 2. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 787-97. van Ek, Jan A. (1986). Objectives for Foreign Language Learning, Vol. 1: Scope. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. van Ek, Jan A. (1973). The “threshold level” in a unit/credit system. In Trim, John Leslie Melville, René Richterich, Jan A. van Ek & David A. Wilkins (Eds) Systems Development in Adult Language Learning/Système d'Apprentissage des langues vivantes par les adultes. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 89-146. [Republished (1980) in Oxford by Pergamon]

Viereck, Wolfgang. (1996). English in Europe: its nativisation and use as a lingua franca, with special reference to German speaking countries. In Reinhard R. K. Hartmann (Ed.) The English Language in Europe. Exeter: Intellect, 16-24.

Weber, George. (1997). Top languages. The world’s 10 most influential languages. Language Today 2/3: 12-18.

Wilkins, David Arthur. (1974). Second Language Learning and Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.